[O]n the eve of a House of Representatives vote on the big tax and spending bills, a rebellion brewed.
The “Working Vermonters Caucus,” a collection of 25 to 30 Progressives, Democrats, and at least one independent, vowed Wednesday to oppose the tax bill when it comes to the House floor Thursday, hoping to force Democratic leaders to collect another $10 million in revenue.
“They need us,” Rep. Chris Pearson, a Burlington Progressive, said of House Speaker Shap Smith and his “money committee” chairs. Almost all of the 53 Republicans in the House are expected to oppose the revenue bill, Pearson said, and so are four independents. If at least 20 members of the Working Vermonters alliance refuse to support the bill, he added, the leadership would “put it on hold for a day” and “make some changes.”
The major change the caucus members want is additional revenue to stave off plans by Gov. Peter Shumlin’s administration to save $10.8 million in labor costs. The governor has threatened to lay off up to 325 workers unless the Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA) agrees to accept lower wages and/or benefits.
The House liberals also hope to soften some of the cuts to social services that have been endorsed by the House Ways and Means and Appropriations committees.
Republicans in the House are not that unhappy about the spending bill, H.490, approved unanimously by the Appropriations Committee. So its passage is not in doubt. But the Republicans appear united in their opposition to the revenue bill, which raises some $35 million in taxes. Republicans want no revenue increases and more budget cuts.
This political background gives the liberal faction its opening. If all its members stick together, the revenue bill wouldn’t have the 76 votes it needs to pass. In that event, Speaker Smith would not call for a vote, and he might be forced to negotiate with Pearson and other caucus leaders, agreeing to raise more tax money in exchange for their votes.
The “if all its members stick together” is the possible sticking point. By the time the caucus’ weekly Wednesday meeting-cum-pizza-lunch gathering brought the matter to a vote, only 14 of them were in the room. They all raised their hands to pledge their fealty to the cause, but 14 no votes would not be enough.
“This is a true ‘Hail Mary’ pass,” said a sympathetic lobbyist for liberal causes.
Perhaps sensing trouble, Smith addressed the caucus before its meeting opened, reminding them of the progressive aspects of the leadership’s tax and budget package.
Acknowledging “real reductions in the budget,” Smith pointed out that it does increase spending, that it covers more low-income people under Medicare and fully funds public worker pensions.
That obviously was not enough for the caucus members, who decided to challenge Smith on the revenue bill.
Whatever the outcome, the apparent possibility of success seemed to encourage the caucus members. Making this stand, said Rep. Jean O’Sullivan, a Burlington Democrat, would finally give the group a chance to do more than “chat among ourselves.” And Rep. Paul Poirier, an independent from Barre, said, “liberals always get taken for granted,” but that if they stood their ground tomorrow, the leaders “would talk to us within a day.”
The caucus members’ first plan is to offer an amendment that would raise more revenue, either by increasing the tax on hotel stays or by raising the income tax brackets for wealthier earners. If the amendment passed, they would vote for the bill. If not, they would oppose it.
Meanwhile, VSEA leaders confirmed that they were negotiating with administration officials on ways to cut labor costs while avoiding either layoffs or wage cuts.
Steve Howard, the union’s executive director, acknowledged that such talks were going on, but declined to explain how costs could be reduced without cutting wages or benefits or laying off workers. Other sources suggested costs could be cut through accelerated attrition and through reducing the number of private contract workers who, in some cases, take the place of state employees.
