State budget heads to House vote - and governor's veto?
|
|
Sen. Susan Barlett, D-Lamoille, studies budget figures Wednesday. |
Toolbox
By LOUIS PORTER Vermont Press Bureau - Published: May 8, 2009
MONTPELIER – The state budget continues to move inexorably toward passage by the Legislature – and a likely veto by Gov. James Douglas.
Thursday a conference committee of House and Senate lawmakers completed work on its spending and tax plans and, late in the evening, the Senate approved the bill.
Now the House will vote on the budget and, if it passes muster there, it will go to the governor.
That does not mean the plan will become law and dictate how the state will spend the roughly $4.5 billion in state, education, transportation and federal money.
"A bill that was not too good to begin with is getting worse as it goes along," Douglas said.
Negotiations between lawmakers and the governor broke down earlier this week, and Douglas said the legislators are relying too much on tax increases to balance the budget. Lawmakers countered that his proposal from earlier this year would rely on increases in property taxes.
But lawmakers defended their work. Given dramatically declining state revenue over the last year they say they have few options but to raise taxes and cut spending, as well as use nearly $180 million in federal stimulus money.
Sen. Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille, the chief Senate budget writer, told her Senate colleagues that the process was too difficult not to joke about, especially given that a large portion of the population objects to at least one portion of the budget.
"We said we wanted to share the pain and I guess we did it," she said.
The Senate voted 18-10 to approve the compromises reached between the House and Senate members.
Some voted against it because the cuts it included were too deep.
Sen. Doug Racine, D-Chittenden, said, as has happened in the past, taxes should be increased to spare some of the cuts made to the budget.
Although he likes it better than the governor's budget, the legislative budget still has "a lack of a reasonable balance," Racine said. "I understand this is a compromise and it is an attempt at a compromise."
And some of the increased taxes that are in the budget are regressive, while middle class Vermonters benefit from some of the tax reductions, Racine added.
"I am getting a tax cut. I don't think that is right," he said.
Others voted against the bill because of the increases in taxes it includes.
"We are in a situation now where it is not only too expensive to live in Vermont, it is too expensive to die in Vermont and now it is too expensive to leave," said Sen. Randy Brock, R-Franklin.
"And if we want to drown our sorrow over high taxes in drink, it is too expensive to do that."
But ultimately most members of the Senate supported the measure.
"Anyone who thought they were going to come to this session and vote on an appropriations and revenue bill and go home and feel good came to the wrong session at the wrong time and with the wrong governor," Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham. Ultimately there have to be cuts, given the decline in revenue, Shumlin said.
"We have made lots of promises we don't have the money to keep," he said. "There is something in this package for everyone to hate."
"If this bill doesn't get signed by the governor, you will be back here making choices you like less in two or three weeks," he said.
Here are some aspects of the legislative budget and tax proposals.
Increased liquor taxes, estate taxes, digital downloads and tobacco taxes.
Changes to income taxes and capital gains taxes that will make several changes. The proposal will raise about $32 million in new taxes, returning $22 million through lowering income tax rates. Overall those changes will result in lower income taxes on average tax filers who earn roughly $200,000 or less, and higher taxes for those who earn more. Those who pay capital gains income taxes will frequently pay more.
Reduces by $18 million how much General Fund money is transferred to the Education Fund. That difference is made up by not reducing property taxes as much as they would be otherwise.
Incentives, including health insurance and $15,000 for state employees who are eligible for retirement who leave state government. This provision is designed to reduce the number of state employees who will be laid off, although some, including State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding, worry the proposal has not been analyzed fully.
A provision directing the administration on how to go about collecting $14 million in personnel savings through layoffs or perhaps an agreement with the union on concessions.
A cut to an annual increase in federal assistance for the aged, blind and disabled of $600,000.
3