Speaker of the Vermont House Shap Smith and Senate Pro Tem Peter Shumlin say they want to work with the governor’s administration to “solve our fiscal problems.”
In response to Gov. James Douglas’ budget address, Smith and Shumlin gave a press conference in the Speaker’s office, flanked by Martha Heath and Susan Bartlett, the chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations committees, respectively.
The two legislative leaders reiterated that they had not yet had an opportunity to review the details of the governor’s budget proposal, which calls for $53 million in cuts to the Agency of Human Services, $38 million in government reform savings, most of which also come from the agency, and a significant restructuring of Vermont’s K-12 educational system. Smith and Shumlin acknowledged the Douglas administration made a good faith effort to foster cooperation with the Legislature as it developed the budget plan.
“The Speaker and I, the chairs of appropriations, and others in this Legislature, intend to work together with the governor to solve our fiscal problems and to put Vermont back on a sustainable fiscal path,” Shumlin said.
Rep. Shap Smith, left, and Sen. Peter Shumlin respond to Gov. James Douglas budget address
Shumlin outlined four main responses to the governor’s speech. He said the Vermont Legislature will “ensure the most vulnerable Vermonters who need us so badly are not left behind.” With regard to the Douglas administration’s proposals for cutting education spending, Shumlin said: “We continue to be guided by the principle that local control in Vermont works. We want to keep it alive and well.”
“We don’t want to transfer Montpelier’s fiscal problems onto the backs of taxpayers,” Shumlin continued. “And finally, we want to ensure that whatever we do creates jobs.”
Smith said the House Appropriations Committee will begin to take testimony on the governor’s budget proposal immediately. “We’re ready to go,” Smith said. “We know we have difficult choices to make, and the Pro Tem has articulated the principles we’ll use in making those decisions.”
When asked if there was anything in the proposal that he couldn’t live with, Smith replied, “It’s not productive for us to say that anything is dead on arrival. We’ll need to see the details of the proposal. There may be areas where we have vigorous discussions, but I don’t think we’ll take anything off the table.”
