Stockxchng image
Editor’s note: The next gubernatorial debate is 9 a.m. Friday with Mark Johnson of WDEV.
Dubie says he’ll use the Tiger Team recommendations to balance the 2012 budget; Shumlin is banking on a $40 million cut in prison spending. Does it all add up?
During their first debate on a local Burlington area radio show Monday morning, the two candidates for governor, Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, the Republican candidate for governor, and Sen. Peter Shumlin, the Democrat, sparred like a couple of boxers.
After opening pleasantries, in which Shumlin described the lieutenant governor as a “friend,” and Dubie congratulated Shumlin on his nomination after a prolonged Democratic primary battle, the two opponents jabbed at each other in more than 40 minutes of close political contact in the cramped WVMT studio.
About halfway through, Dubie hit the ropes with the first major gaffe. Shumlin asked him to give three examples of cuts that would “get you $110 million” (the amount of the budget deficit). Dubie said: “You have to go where the money is. Education spending is not sustainable.” Dubie then went on to say: “We’re going to have to look at our programs and target the most vulnerable. We have programs we’re going to have to reform.”
Shumlin chided him for being vague. “We have a responsibility as candidates for governor to be clear with the voters if we’re going to outline a plan as bold as yours. Give me three examples. You just said you were going to cut the most vulnerable; what programs are you going to cut for the most vulnerable?”
Dubie, instead of acknowledging his misstatement, segued into a short riff about how he would implement the Tiger Team recommendations. “It’s basic, Peter,” Dubie said. “We’re just going to have to do what families are going to do, we’re going to shrink middle management. There were a myriad of recommendations that were not embraced by the Legislature in those Tiger Team recommendations; there’s still work to be done there that will help us make reforms going forward … the conversation about specific programs will continue as the campaign goes forward.”
Kate Duffy, Dubie’s communications director, was left to correct the record after the fact. In an e-mail, she wrote: “Neither his record nor anything else Brian has ever said or done even remotely suggests he would ‘target’ vulnerable Vermonters. He has been very clear in all of his speeches, interviews and position papers that the reason we need to promote jobs and the economy is so there is a strong enough tax base to support the things we value as a state — a great education, a clean environment, public safety, and protection for our most vulnerable.”
The verbal faux pas was just that – an unfortunate choice of wording. The Tiger Team mention, however, was unmistakable: By referring to the set of controversial recommendations for significant reductions in Medicaid benefits, mental health services and affordable housing programs, Dubie acknowledged that his administration would use research conducted by top-level bureaucrats under the Douglas administration last year to set the stage for his own budget-setting priorities in those areas. Dubie has also said he would reduce school spending by $84 million.
In the same debate, Shumlin had his own moments of vagueness. Although he insisted Dubie needed to be specific about what General Fund cuts he would propose in 2012, suggesting that the state will have to reduce its budget by 9 percent, Shumlin himself was opaque in his answers to questions about how his own proposals would achieve that goal.
Shumlin says he would save an undefined amount of money through health care reform. Shumlin is a proponent of a government-administered, single-payer health care system. He also proposes cutting $40 million from the $127.6 million budget for the Department of Corrections.
Shumlin explained his rationale for the latter: “When you have to balance the budget in tough times, you go where the money is.” Dubie, however, lacking more specifics from Shumlin on Corrections cuts, retorted: “What I’m not going to do is have a release of offenders into the community.”
Shumlin also said at another point in the debate he would use Corrections savings to help pay for his plan to create a new Kindergarten-Grade 3 early childhood education program, a plan Shumlin has also yet to flesh out.
Meanwhile, the elephant in the room both candidates danced around was this: The state of Vermont faces a budget cliff in fiscal year 2012. The revenue shortfall is projected to be $184 million, including $72 million worth of Challenges for Change savings from government restructuring efforts that have yet to be identified. Available General Fund revenue next year is expected to increase by 7.7 percent from $1.09 billion to $1.174 billion, according to the Joint Fiscal Office.
The deficit also comes at the end of three very lean years. The state budget is now at 2005 levels, and though the federal government has softened the blow with “stimulus fund” distributions, the end of the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money) comes on June 30, 2011.
From there on out, the state will have to cope with deficits, for the foreseeable future, on its own.
Though Dubie and Shumlin have presented very different economic development scenarios for the state, both candidates so far have couched their proposals in generalities.
Dubie says he is adamant about cutting taxes for “job creators,” while Shumlin vows to fight for the middle class. Their economic plans, “Pure Vermont” (Dubie) and “A Vision for Vermont” (Shumlin), are diametrically opposed. Dubie wants to cap state spending at 2 percent for a three-year period and cut income and property taxes, while Shumlin wants to cut the growth in Corrections Department expenditures and health care insurance costs, which he says are “breaking the backs” of businesses.
At press conferences, they have declined to elaborate. Spreadsheets, for example, have not been made available. Neither has been willing to provide detailed information about how potential cuts or efficiencies would be implemented. Both agree, however, that they want to avoid raising taxes and tapping the state’s $60 million rainy day funds.
Vtdigger.org evaluates the candidates’ statements at face value in two related articles: What if the state cut $40 million from the Corrections budget? How would the recommendations from the Tiger Team report affect services and programs for Vermonters who use subsidized health care and mental health programs? Read Truth Squad Part 2 and 3 to find out what these proposals might mean for Vermont.
Permalink |
The budget graphs and narrative in Dubie’s \Pure Vermont\ plan are presumably based on the latest economic assumptions used by the Emergency Board and Joint Fiscal Committee – those presented in July 2010 by the consulting economists Tom Kavet and Jeff Carr.
These assumptions may be too optimistic. The revenue estimate document on the Joint Fiscal Office Web site assumes real GDP growth of 3.1% for 2010, 3.9% for 2011, and 5.0% for 2012. The document also assumes an 11.4% increase in personal income tax receipts from FY 2011 to FY 2012.
Many economists who make projections on a national level would say these numbers are too high. While a few economists project a \double-dip\ recession and a few assume a rapid V-shaped recovery, many economists seem to be coming to the view that GDP growth will run between 1.5% and 2.0% for the next several quarters.
If this is the case, Vermont’s income tax receipts will not grow by more than 11% from FY 2011 to FY 2012. If so, the general fund deficit will be more than the projected $112 million for FY 2012. For example, if income tax receipts were to increase at 5%, rather than 11.4%, from FY 11 to FY 12, the budget gap would be $34 million greater.
Candidates should be asked challenging questions about economic assumptions and the FY 12 budget in the upcoming debates.
Permalink |
In tonight’s debate on VPR, Brian stated he would start with the FY 12 budget being developed by the Douglas team now.
Regarding “Challenges” for Change, there is another organization that relies on “challenges” to keep its expenses down: BP. In news articles since the Gulf spill, BP catastrophes at the Texas City refinery and in Alaska were attributed to budget “challenges” issued by London headquarters, forced severely down the chain of command.
I think “Challenges for Change” is nothing but consultant-supplied doublespeak, used to confuse people long enough to allow a few at the top to make severe cuts before dissent can find a way past the rhetoric of “challenges.” After all, what red-blooded Vermonter can oppose accepting a challenge? This last Spring, under the gold dome, there was a group suspension of disbelief held just long enough to force the legislature into accepting a last minute proposal for huge cuts without the normal debate on the details. That is what Challenges for Change was all about: subverting democracy.
The term “Challenges for Change” needs to be eliminated from Vermont political discourse, debunked as a smoke and mirrors, so our legislators and public can re-engage in the detailed process of working our way through yet another year of gargantuan cuts.
I believe nearly every legislator is onto the scam of Challenges for Change, so I am disappointed that Brian clings to it.
Permalink |
I agree with this comment. CFC was rammed through the legislature in a matter of weeks. No one realistically believes that government can be restructured without long term planning. Unfortunately, the Douglas administration does not miss any opportunity to make deep across the board cuts to government, and CFC provided easy cover. Brian Dubie’s clinging to CFC and the “Tiger Teams” proves that he offers nothing more to Vermont than a continuation of the Douglas administration’s destructive policies.
Permalink |
Hi Arthur,
Not fair to pin this on Douglas only. Shap Smith, Susan Bartlett, and Peter Shumlin all bought in completely to the C4C sloganeering. “Let the process work. Work for outcomes, not spending limits.”
The Democratic leaders used C4C to take their collaboration with Douglas underground, in pursuit of their higher goal: avoid another budget showdown, avoid veto and override at all costs. Susan, in particular, was very open about wanting to avoid the acrimony of the 2009 session. Even though the Dems won in 2009, via the override, the Dems felt terrible about the partisan breakdown of the legislative/executive process.
I do not know why the Dems felt so bad. I thought the veto override was a great moment in Vermont history, a victory for the little people. I think it had a lot to do with nudging Gov. Douglas out of running again. I guess the Democratic leadership wanted to work with Gov. Douglas, instead of slaughtering their adversary in the 2010 session. So, the Democratic leadership used C4C to block broad legislative participation, to keep the process simple. Democratic leadership absolutely equally culpable with Gov. Douglas for the C4C mystification game.
Permalink |
Thank you, Dan, for clarifying that virtually everyone “bought in” to “Challenges.”
Not only was it a joint initiative of the administration and legislative leadership (Shumlin), it continues to this day to be actively supported and led by the legislature. The Government Accountability Committee (the legislature’s Challenges oversight arm), as recently as its meeting this past week, continues to insist that this is about structural revision, not budget cuts, including for Education. (Ask your local school board about its view on that.)
This is despite the clear evidence already that the already booked “savings” just aren’t there — and remember, the legislature closed the session with the last $7 million not even identified.
The first week of the session, legislators were essentially told this was a “done deal” and they had to comply. It was an open joke about “drinking the Kool-Aid.” There was no last minute forcing this through — everyone opted against democracy and transparancy, as far as I am concerned. No one wanted to take responsibility to actually balance the budget, whether through greater cuts or through raising taxes, particlarly in an election year with the governor’s seat open.
Ask Peter Shumlin: why is he still supporting the “Challenges” under his Senate leadership?
It merely pushes greater problems to a new administration and legislature to address after the election. All we are getting so far as his “plans” are old fictions. We have not remotely achieved the existing “Corrections challenge,” let alone save $40 million more, which is irresponsible to even suggest.
On the other hand, the Tiger Team reports were rife with misrepresentations of fact. If the current administration is utterly challenged in achieving this year’s cuts (oops, Challenges), there is no fat left. Ask Brian Dubie: Why is he relying on old reports that were already repudiated?
The only bottom line I suggest is that people consider that if they care about the democratic process of public debate, it will only have a chance next year if the super-majority Democrats in the House and Senate are forced to dialogue — (some, not much) — and balance ideas with a Republican governor. A single party government will ride roughshod over ideas from anywhere else, even more so than the control exercised over its compliant rank-and-file members this year, who rubber-stamped everything they were told.
The Challenges bill was actually introduced in the House on a “mock session” day (no actual session)when it wasn’t finished with the drafting process: it wasn’t available to be seen by anyone (including a legislator requesting it). That’s evidence of the utter erosion of the process already this year.
Yes, I speak with a strong bias: I spoke consistently and loudly, fighting the game of “Challenges” from day one to the bitter end, against both administration and legislative leaders. My columns on the topic are all recorded on my blog site and my votes and statements are in the House Journal. The few other vocal opponents to “Challenges” were Republican House members who were fighting for open government.
Rep. Anne Donahue
Permalink |
Early on in the VPR debate, B. Dubie threw out a variety of figures about VT’s tax system and cited the American Legislative Exchange Council as an authoritative source. Most listeners were probably not aware that this is a viciously right wing alliance of state legislators, responsible for a wave of regressive legislative proposals nationwide. ALEC is not a neutral source, it’s a corporate sponsored attempt to bring extreme right wing legislative agendas–anti-environmental and otherwise– from Congress into the states.
Groups from Defenders of Wildlife, to People for the American Way and PR Watch, have documented this shadowy organization over the past several years. Their reports are probably still all online. Also see “Where Bad Bills Come From,” by Nicholas Kusnetz, The Nation June 9, 2010.
Permalink |
The centerpiece of Brian Dubie’s agenda is capping state spending increases at 2 percent. Such a plan would cripple Vermont’s ability to maintain any level of public services, educate our children or protect the environment. Everywhere that arbitrary spending caps have been mandated has faced dire consequences and eventually regretted it. Spending caps don’t work because the cost of providing goods and services does not stop increasing, forcing budget writers to make even deeper cuts. Colorado tried this for several years and largely repealed their law when they saw the damage they had caused. This has not stopped tea party activists and others from continuing to push for similar caps across the country. Thankfully they have been rejected at almost every turn. Hopefully so will Brian Dubie’s bid for Governor.