If the devil is in the details, the devil that is the annual budget for state government is a thousand details, large and small.
On Monday, the Senate Appropriations Committee finalized decisions on what to cut, what to salvage and how to use $10 million in new tax revenues. When the senators finished their weeks-long, General Fund budget-cutting exercise, the grand total was $2 million less than the House passed proposal. It is $17 million less than the governor’s budget recommendation.
The Senate budget represents a 4.5 percent growth rate in state spending; the House version is 4.7 percent.
Most importantly from a political standpoint, all seven members of the committee — representing a range of liberal and conservative views — supported the $1.362 billion government spending plan in a 7-0 vote. The full Senate will begin consideration of the so-called Big Bill on Wednesday, the same day it finishes debate on a $10 million tax proposal.
Like the House, the Senate has rejected two of the Shumlin administration’s major proposals: a $17 million tax on rip-off or break-open tickets sold to benefit charities and accompanying new spends on weatherization, renewable energy and funding for the Low Income Heating Assistance Program; and a plan to take $17 million in tax credits from low-income working Vermonters to pay for childcare subsidies.
Once the House and Senate rejected the funding, which lawmakers saw as insupportable (the break-open tickets plan dropped like a lead balloon from $17 million to a mere $400,000 in revenues by the end of the session; Republicans and Democrats alike objected to using the Earned Income Tax Credit as a funding vehicle), it was difficult for lawmakers to find a way to fund the $34 million in new spending. The growth rate in the governor’s recommend was 5.6 percent.
The administration’s last-minute attempt to adjust the budget and tax proposals for the Senate failed. By then, bringing the EITC proposal down to $12 million and break-open tickets to a $6 million plan was too little, too late.
The big difference between the Senate and House versions of the bill comes down to reserves. Senate is raising about $13 million less than the House in new taxes (although that number could change if lawmakers approve a separate tax on tobacco that could raise $8 million to $10 million). That’s because the Senate Appropriations Committee jettisoned a major component of the House budget — $9 million in reserves that would be used as a buffer for anticipated federal cuts to state programs.
An exchange between two key senators — Sens. Jane Kitchel, the chair, and Bobby Starr, both Democrats from the Northeast Kingdom, summed up the panel’s view of the House reserve proposal.
“They were raising taxes to save money,” Starr said.
“Would that work well in the Northeast Kingdom?” Kitchel asked.
“I think that would slide hard up there,” Starr replied.
Reserves will likely be a major sticking point, however, once the Big Bill makes it to conference committee. House Speaker Shap Smith has made it clear he believes it is “prudent” to prepare for pending federal cuts.
Another notable difference between the House and Senate version? The Senate cut more of the new positions the administration proposed. Gov. Peter Shumlin asked for 79; the House gave him 66; the Senate whittled that down a little more, to 58. That move saved about $200,000.
The state’s weatherization and clean energy programs took a $1.9 million hit. The Senate wants to use that money to boost LIHEAP funding from $6 million to $7.9 million, in order keep fuel assistance in fiscal year 2014 on par with this year’s level.
While the House set aside $3.3 million for additional child-care subsidies, the Senate has put in $3.4 million: $1.7 million for a 3 percent increase in provider subsidies (on 2008 levels) and $1.7 million in funding for provider training and child care for families with incomes at the federal poverty level.
The state’s welfare-to-work program will see a $3 million reduction as a result of changes in caseload — not because of policy changes this year. For details on the Senate Reach Up proposal, which includes a five-year cap on benefits, read Alicia Freese’s story.
Senate Appropriations cut a number of program grant requests by a percentage, most by 40 percent to 50 percent. Here’s the list: Mountain Bike promotion grant, the maritime museum, Vermont Symphony Orchestra, the Vermont Council on the Arts, substance abuse and recovery programs, the HASS program, adult day programs, clinics for the uninsured, mentoring, community justice centers and a shoreline study.
What follows is a rundown of the items that made the cut:
Vermont Veterans Home in Bennington, $1.344 million budget error fix
Vermont Legal Aid’s homeowner center, $325,000
Catamount Health and VHAP patients, $4.345 million for cost-sharing under the exchange
Low-income children who qualify for subsidized school lunches would get free lunches, $324,000
Higher education institutions get $2.5 million to defray 3 percent tuition hikes for Vermont students at UVM and Vermont State Colleges
The Department of Mental Health, which “forgot” to include $382,000 for the Middlesex secure residential facility
Regional Development Corporations are slated to get $200,000
The Vermont Historical Society, $30,000
Clean Energy Development Fund, $150,000
The Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, $200,000
The programs Senate Appropriations decided not to fund:
The health care financing legislative study, $50,000
Suicide prevention program, $50,000
Additional money for the working landscape program, $325,000
Vermont Training Program, $150,000
Gaming industry promotion grant, $75,000
Vermont Federation of Sportsmen, $50,000
Neighbors in Need, $20,000
Editor’s note: This story was updated at 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on April 30.
CORRECTION: The funding for VIT was increased, not cut as originally reported, in order to give raises to employees for the first time in four years.
