Show Posts
271
Political Issues/Comments / money money
« on: December 18, 2008, 09:25:09 AM »
State finances are on my mind.
There is a total $66 million gap in revenues needed to meet the current year’s shortfall. Of that total, $37 million is due to revenues not meeting expectations. Keep in mind the budget has already experienced significant downgrades due to reduced revenue and millions have already been cut. An additional $29 million is due to unanticipated increases in budget demands, and would typically be dealt with at budget adjustment time in late January. It is unlikely there will be extra money at that time, so the legislature needs to be prepared to reduce expenditures by $29 million in addition to the $37mil. Of the $37 million, the Joint Fiscal Committee is reluctant to cut the entire amount because in doing so policy will certainly be impacted. They want to get the opinion of the entire General Assembly before cutting the budget to this extent. So, respecting that position, the administration has suggested where cuts could be made for $19.7 million.
I know these decisions are tough. Putting the budget together in the beginning is a long complicated task and no one wants to take it apart. However the economic times demand difficult decisions. I commend the Governor for putting these suggestions on the table to get the discussion started. The Joint Fiscal Committee continues to take testimony from the public.
After looking at the Governor’s budget proposals these particular items stick out in my mind:
The $4.5 million in reductions from the Agency of Transportation are going to hurt because our roads are already in such dismal shape. The $339,000 aid in town highway structures, the $700,000 in Class 2 road aid and the $1,850,000 in general town highway aid are going to be discussed in every selectboard meeting across the state. This loss goes directly to the towns and is not taxpayer savings, because most towns will be forced to pick up the loss by adding to the municipal budget. This is a classic cost shift. Fortunately yesterday the Joint Fiscal Committee voted to shelve the reduction in general town highway aid. It may be considered at a later time though.
I’d like to know more about the additional 47 beds being added to Northwest Correctional Center. The proposal says this will save more money than the original proposal to change the prison. Are those beds for women? Men? If there is some flexibility in adding beds, then why can’t the area police use some space for housing prisoners overnight instead of driving to Newport?
Room for more cuts? There is always room for reducing expenses. The question is….. what programs are we willing to reduce or eliminate? I like the administration’s proposal to not to hire positions already vacant. As others have mentioned, the Land Trust $15 million appropriation should be put on hold for this year. The legislature itself can save significant money by shortening the session. I, for one, am willing to work very long days if by doing so, we could shorten the session and use the savings to provide programs for needy Vermonters.
We need to think of efficiency and best methods to reduce duplication. For example, all law enforcement should be under the same agency. Instead of having separate officers for DMV, Fish and Game, Sec of State, Statehouse and others all these should be under one umbrella, possibly the State Police. There could be significant savings in administration and better coordination in training. This would not reduce the total number of officers, but would allow administration and training to be more efficient and cheaper.
I have had doubts about the ability of Catamount to succeed from the beginning. Last year the state spent millions trying to advertise the program to attract more participants. Catamount was originally designed to serve 60,000 people. Only 6,000 have signed up. We either need to loosen up the regulations so that more people are able to qualify and pay into the program, or find a way to cover the 6,000 and close the program. This is a huge outflow of money Vermont can no longer afford. It's not working as is.
We have not yet seen the bottom of this recession. Further cuts are ahead of us. I am certain that before the end of the fiscal year, the legislature and the administration will be working together on further cuts due to downgrades in revenue. We know from Economics 101 that raising taxes in a recession is exactly the wrong thing to do. I will continue to fight tax increases. Deficit spending is irresponsible and I am glad to see that neither the administration nor members of the Joint Fiscal Committee are willing to consider it. The only viable option we have is exactly what is being done: the close examination of budget proposals and related revenue predictions and then cutting expenditures until the two match.
Rep. Carolyn Branagan
Frankin-1, Fairfax/Georgia
Vermont House of Representatives
There is a total $66 million gap in revenues needed to meet the current year’s shortfall. Of that total, $37 million is due to revenues not meeting expectations. Keep in mind the budget has already experienced significant downgrades due to reduced revenue and millions have already been cut. An additional $29 million is due to unanticipated increases in budget demands, and would typically be dealt with at budget adjustment time in late January. It is unlikely there will be extra money at that time, so the legislature needs to be prepared to reduce expenditures by $29 million in addition to the $37mil. Of the $37 million, the Joint Fiscal Committee is reluctant to cut the entire amount because in doing so policy will certainly be impacted. They want to get the opinion of the entire General Assembly before cutting the budget to this extent. So, respecting that position, the administration has suggested where cuts could be made for $19.7 million.
I know these decisions are tough. Putting the budget together in the beginning is a long complicated task and no one wants to take it apart. However the economic times demand difficult decisions. I commend the Governor for putting these suggestions on the table to get the discussion started. The Joint Fiscal Committee continues to take testimony from the public.
After looking at the Governor’s budget proposals these particular items stick out in my mind:
The $4.5 million in reductions from the Agency of Transportation are going to hurt because our roads are already in such dismal shape. The $339,000 aid in town highway structures, the $700,000 in Class 2 road aid and the $1,850,000 in general town highway aid are going to be discussed in every selectboard meeting across the state. This loss goes directly to the towns and is not taxpayer savings, because most towns will be forced to pick up the loss by adding to the municipal budget. This is a classic cost shift. Fortunately yesterday the Joint Fiscal Committee voted to shelve the reduction in general town highway aid. It may be considered at a later time though.
I’d like to know more about the additional 47 beds being added to Northwest Correctional Center. The proposal says this will save more money than the original proposal to change the prison. Are those beds for women? Men? If there is some flexibility in adding beds, then why can’t the area police use some space for housing prisoners overnight instead of driving to Newport?
Room for more cuts? There is always room for reducing expenses. The question is….. what programs are we willing to reduce or eliminate? I like the administration’s proposal to not to hire positions already vacant. As others have mentioned, the Land Trust $15 million appropriation should be put on hold for this year. The legislature itself can save significant money by shortening the session. I, for one, am willing to work very long days if by doing so, we could shorten the session and use the savings to provide programs for needy Vermonters.
We need to think of efficiency and best methods to reduce duplication. For example, all law enforcement should be under the same agency. Instead of having separate officers for DMV, Fish and Game, Sec of State, Statehouse and others all these should be under one umbrella, possibly the State Police. There could be significant savings in administration and better coordination in training. This would not reduce the total number of officers, but would allow administration and training to be more efficient and cheaper.
I have had doubts about the ability of Catamount to succeed from the beginning. Last year the state spent millions trying to advertise the program to attract more participants. Catamount was originally designed to serve 60,000 people. Only 6,000 have signed up. We either need to loosen up the regulations so that more people are able to qualify and pay into the program, or find a way to cover the 6,000 and close the program. This is a huge outflow of money Vermont can no longer afford. It's not working as is.
We have not yet seen the bottom of this recession. Further cuts are ahead of us. I am certain that before the end of the fiscal year, the legislature and the administration will be working together on further cuts due to downgrades in revenue. We know from Economics 101 that raising taxes in a recession is exactly the wrong thing to do. I will continue to fight tax increases. Deficit spending is irresponsible and I am glad to see that neither the administration nor members of the Joint Fiscal Committee are willing to consider it. The only viable option we have is exactly what is being done: the close examination of budget proposals and related revenue predictions and then cutting expenditures until the two match.
Rep. Carolyn Branagan
Frankin-1, Fairfax/Georgia
Vermont House of Representatives
