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.
