Jon Margolis is VTDigger’s political analyst.
[I]’m trying to focus on good government,” House Speaker Mitzi Johnson said shortly after she and her Democratic colleagues had failed to override Gov. Phil Scott’s veto of the budget bill. “That’s the reason I’m in this business.”
Maybe that’s the problem.
With only 11 days left in the fiscal year, Vermont still lacks a state budget because both the Republican governor and the Democrats who run the Legislature are pursuing good government as they see it.
Good politics, too, of course, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
Scott clearly thinks it’s good politics to hold firmly to his pledge to prevent any and all tax increases. That explains why he vetoed the last budget bill even though it didn’t raise taxes as much as it held open the possibility of higher taxes if nothing else was done.
But something else would have been done, not only because all sides have pledged to do something else, but because not doing something else – setting a tax rate – would be politically suicidal.
Still, even the theoretical prospect of a tax hike was enough for Scott to veto it. Preventing tax increases seems to be his mission in life, and there’s every reason to conclude that he thinks this is good government as well as good politics.
Just as there is every reason to conclude that the Democrats think it’s bad government to use (they would say squander) all this extra cash on hand to prevent even the smallest property tax increase this year because it would require a bigger increase next year.
On this, House Republican Minority Leader Don Turner agrees. Higher property taxes “are likely next year,” Turner said. “I’m not trying to hide that.”
He didn’t specifically say that using this year’s “one-time money” to prevent any tax hike now would compel an even bigger one next year. Nor did he dispute it.
But Turner, like the governor, like most Republicans everywhere, thinks it’s always good government to hold down taxes.
Several of the Republicans who voted to uphold the veto had voted for the budget bill earlier this month. Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Tim Ashe described their reversal as a “flip-flop,” and it may have been, but politically the Republicans have little choice. Phil Scott is about all they have.
The governor is a heavy favorite to be re-elected this November. The prestigious Cook Political Report recently moved its projections for the Vermont governor’s race from “likely Republican” to “solid Republican.”
Turner, running for lieutenant governor, starts off as the underdog against incumbent Progressive/Democrat David Zuckerman, but has the potential to run a credible race.
After that, GOP prospects are bleak. They have effectively no candidates for the other statewide offices, and if anything, seem likely to lose seats in the Legislature. No wonder every Republican voted to uphold Scott’s veto.
If the Republicans had little choice, the Democrats so far seem to have few worries. They do not seem to be under any pressure from their constituents to accept Scott’s demand on the budget bill. They are confident that they will maintain healthy majorities in both houses.
And they think that if there is a government shutdown starting July 1, Scott will get most of the blame. He is the face of state government. Most Vermonters know who he is. Not that many can identify their legislators.
The Democrats are probably right about this, just as Scott is probably right about the political advantage of opposing any tax increase. But they are all taking a risk.
What they don’t seem to be taking are very many meetings. Johnson said she met with Scott Thursday and both she and Ashe met with the governor on Friday. But they just “sat down and talked,” she said. They had no “negotiations per se.”
At some point, negotiations per se may be needed. Impasses are usually resolved when opposing sides reach an agreement. Being between human beings, these agreements require one side to give the other something it wants in return for a reciprocal act by the other. Such arrangements are best made behind closed doors.
Instead of meeting, Vermont’s political leaders are sniping, each side saying that if it gives in to the other it will surrender “leverage” in the debates to come.
Personalities as well as politics and policies may be involved here. Veterans at the Statehouse note that none of today’s three principals are political schmoozers in the way that some of their predecessors were, people like Republican Gov. Richard Snelling and Democratic House Speaker Ralph Wright.
Not that long ago, say the veterans, as the legislative session neared its end, the governor, the speaker and the pro tem would go into a room. It might have been a smoke-filled room. They might have brought a bottle or two of interesting libation. They would chat. They would banter. They would joke, smoke, drink, and make a deal.
Never romanticize the past. Smoking, now banned in the Statehouse, is bad for one’s health. Some of yesteryear’s leaders might have had a little too much from those bottles, especially if they were driving home.
But right now perhaps Vermont’s state government would be well-served by less squabbling over leverages and more deal-making over beverages.
