An Open Letter to House Republicans (UPDATE: Veto OVERIDDEN)

Freedom to Ignore Information and all...

What's not to like?

Only Vermont governor to EVER veto a state budget, even after this legislature compromised on may, many issues.

Fiscal irresponsibility on a whole new level.

This is akin to hitting a home run over the Green Monster and onto the Mass Pike! Good job.  

Cannot recall if I have asked this before or not, however do you or any of the other front pagers have a Twitter account and are active with it?

If not, you or someone else should consider setting one up either for yourself or for GMD in general.

That said, while it may not hurt to also set things up to allow for GMD posts be fed to the account using the RSS feed and tools allowing one to do so, it is better to also tweet regular posts whenever possible, since using just as an RSS feed does not really work or is the best use of Twitter either.

In my opinion, a Twitter account would help GMD reach various people in both a timely and complimentary manner that the blog alone may not be able to do on its own.

It is just a thought.

For the time being though, I've tweeted a link to this blog post of yours via @vtwatch.

Morgan W. Brown Montpelier, Vermont

The Governor would remove the property taxes income sensitivity accomodation for homes with combined incomes between roughly $75,000 and $96,000. These aren't rich people and they're not poor people - and in many cases, they are a lot of the folks being hit hardest by the current recession.

But that's not true! People earning $75,000 to $96,000 are most definitely NOT being hit the hardest. As a matter of fact these folks are part of the population that can afford to pay more in taxes to help maintain government and work off that federal debt.

If you want to find those being hit the hardest, look to the low wage jobs that make it possible for others to buy all sorts of goodies on a $75,000 to $96,000 salary.

As a state and nation we seem intent on pandering to those who don't really need the extra help at the expense of those who do. Middle class tax cuts? No. Drop farmers and loggers out of closing capital gains loophole? No.

We should be lowering the property tax income sensitivity. We should be increasing income taxes. We should be looking to reduce governmental expenditures. We should be moving to a single payer health/medical system.

These are rough times ... we either deal with it or pander to it. Fawning on $75,000 to $96,000 is pandering in my opinion. And pandering is just code for "kick it down the road".

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)

Come on Julie.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)

but the tax capacity is not primarily at this range but at the top; and $75k - $95k is nowhere near the top; in fact, those are truly middle class families; that range includes two earner families like teachers, police, nurses, carpenters, machinists, and so on

by eliminating income sensitivity for this group, the Gov. & Pelham hope to piss off enough people to get rid of the system altogether (while reducing rates for businesses, the wealthy & second homeowners)

of course we should do all the things you mentioned; but I don't think this is pandering and I'm not sure it's fair to say that "these folks are part of the population that can afford to pay more in taxes"

two earner families that earn $80k are not the problem; so why target them?

http://greenmountaindaily.com/...

They are very intentionally divided into different conversations meant to be taken on their own merits.

undercaffeinated

Making that claim is pandering in my book. Period.

And then I roughed out some of what I though should be done.


It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)

Is each and every individual member of this "we" equally responsible/guilty? No ... but we aren't being asked to make individual corrections, we are being asked to make collective corrections. (I know of plenty of middle income earners who've done their part in actively foisting this modern day capitalism crap on the world ... so there is plenty of individual responsibility/guilt at our economic level.)

Was much, if not most, of this economic crap foisted on us by a top down mechanism? Absolutely.

But here's an anecdote followed by an aphorism: My father was a violent drunk who earned really great money for his day, but he spent the greatest part of his income on things other than family. Despite my father being one of the head honchos in the 1960's rebuilding of O'Hare Airport in Chicago, my mother had to work to pay our rent and buy food. I remember well the Christmas where our Christmas Tree was a small tree trunk found floating in Lake Michigan ... not because we wanted it ... but because it was free and we could use our imaginations.

It was unfair for things to be that way ... but as a family we did what needed to be done to get on with life. I had my first tax paying job at 13 years old and already had a decent resume with which to apply for THAT job, and I was the last out of five kids in my family like that.

The aphorism: it ain't fair, but it's life ... get over it.

Yes ... I'd increase taxes the most on those earning the most. I would also increase taxes on those not earning the most.

But that's just my view.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)

I'm not convinced that the answer lies in higher taxes for everyone; we didn't get here because middle-income taxpayers pay too little; we've had 35 years of cuts in taxes for the wealthy and wonder why there isn't enough money

and I don't think we should reduce gov't. expenditures

we can certainly do a lot more with the money we already have; a perfect example - we spend billions on housing "assistance" but most of it (excluding the mortgage interest deduction) doesn't build wealth for low-income families; Section 8 vouchers go to landlords; it's a misdirected short-term fix

I suspect we agree that oodles is wasted on corp. welfare; and that fixing health care solves numerous problems; so before we increase taxes on working people, we have to address those issues

People in our position (job losses and health issues leading to debt, that leads to barely keeping one's head above water once employment is regained) simply and absolutely cannot absorb the tax hit.

We are right at the bottom end of the group that the gov wants to slaughter with his tax increase.

There are a ton of people worse off than we are, but the Governor proposed to remedy that by making us just as bad off, rather than by asking those who have amassed far more than necessary to pay their fair share to the state that helped them succeed.

We. can. not. take. another. hit.

We just can't.

Between the credit card interest rate hikes (on the cards that kept us out of homelessness during 2 years of dual unemployment while paying COBRA and post-surgical co-pays with every last penny of our 401k money - ask me about the tax implications of that), and necessary tax increases to keep things like the school roof from tossing any more 100+ year-old slates at the students, plus ordinary expenses, like (used) clothes for the children who insist on continuing to grow like weeds, and the food that acts as fertilizer, plus last year's killer (and this year's increasing again) gas prices, and ordinary car maintenance, and ...

We're standing on the razor's edge and it's a loooooong way down if we slip. The governor was sneaking up behind us, prepared to give us the old "heave ho" right into the abyss.

I'm glad, and DEEPLY relieved the override passed.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

58  Addison
456 Bennington
1115 Burlington
834 Colchester
146 Ferrisburh
28  Jamaica
61  Londonderry
598 Rutland City
935 S. Burlington
204 Stowe
105 Vergennes

see http://www.state.vt.us/tax/pdf... for more

I don't understand why Republicans, and Douglas for that matter are distancing themselves from their recent budget proposal.

I woner how many house members would vote for the Douglas budget propose only two weeks ago.

I would guess not many. What would you guess?

cheers to odum, cant measure how much impact this letter had, but your argument is airtight, presented respectfully, and no repub wants to alienate the demographic you highlighted.  

Will Douglas veto it (not for any reason other than spite)?

juliewaters.com

To the Editor,

The Governor wants to toss aside the budget painstakingly hammered out by legislators on both sides of the aisle. Instead he has proposed a new budget that hurts middle class families who are already reeling from the faltering economy. The legislative Joint Fiscal Office has run the numbers on the Douglas proposal: it will cost the middle class more in property taxes - sometimes much more - than the legislature's budget.

In Bradford, households in the upper-middle will pay, on average, an additional $358/yr more in property taxes, while upper-middle families hit hardest by his change will be saddled with an additional $2,318. In Chelsea, the numbers are: $269 and $2014. Fairlee: $735 and $7614; Newbury: $377 and $5094. In almost every town, Douglas piles more taxes on top of any that the legislature's budget would have created. Since he presented it so late, there's little time to comb through to find other lurking surprises, but with what we know so far, it's clear we cannot afford the Governor's budget.

It might have been Patricia McDonald who snapped out a reminder that the issue at hand was the Legislature's budget as vetoed by the Governor, not the Governor's proposed (ahem) "budget." But she closed at least one speech with this Freudian slip: "Please vote to sustain the Governor's budget." It was certainly she who caused a minor stir by trying to shut down another legislator's comparison of the budget they had passed with the Governor's proposals as "not relevant to the question at hand." After consultation, Speaker Shap Smith ruled her objection (a "point of order" for you Rogers Rules zealots) as "not well taken" (the equivalent of "out of order").

If you haven't been to the legislature, it's interesting to be there. No one is addressed by name, but only as "the member from" their town. They almost never address each other, but are allowed to speak only to the Speaker, even when "inquiring" of a committee chair about a bill.

Duncan Kilmartin's speech was built on a mispronunciation: "Duplicious." VDP Chairwoman Judy Bevans whispered in my ear, "Does that mean two scoops of Ben & Jerry's?" He was fulminating about "duplicious taxation." Of course he meant "duplicitous," meaning deceptive, dishonest, or misleading. He went on at some length about his aged mother in a nursing home. "Thirty-seven cents of every dollar paid out of her estate goes to support somebody on Medicaid," he grumbled. I wondered whether others caught the import of his wording: "her estate," rather than "her pocket," or "my family's savings." He contradicted himself by complaining that the Legislature's budget threatened to "tax our citizens into servitude," while at the same time extolling the "income sensitivity" provisions of the property tax, targeted for the major increase under Governor Douglas's proposals. I hope he runs for higher office soon. He'd lose badly and then retire from politics.

Ran into Progressive David Zuckerman (whose speech followed Kilmartin's on the floor, as he put it, "from one extreme to the other") in the Card Room after the vote. He made a point of mentioning that while two Democrats changed their votes on the budget for the override, THREE Progressives changed theirs in order to achieve the necessary two-thirds vote.

And, unfortunately, Independent Will Stevens of Shoreham voted against the override -- and it was also his wedding anniversary (which point came up later in the afternoon).

Senators milled outside the chamber, making occasional forays into the ornate red seats along the East wall (which are actually their seats when a joint session is held) or the window wells. Sen. Shumlin was in evidence, as was Sen. Susan Bartlett. And Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie occupied a window well on the north side of the chamber for part of the debate, while Neale Lunderville paced anxiously out in the hallway.

NanuqFC
To tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men [and women]. ~ Edmund Burke (1729-1797, Irish philosopher & statesman)

And certainly a disastrous budget.

And much better than the Douglas one.

But really no victory at all.

PJ

But I think I know what you were trying to say, and appreciate it.

undercaffeinated

The budget that was passed is a terrible budget - except for all the others that were proposed.

NanuqFC
Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt