(GMD has a policy of front paging all diaries from people currently running for statewide office in Vermont. – promoted by JulieWaters)
“Challenges for Change” is a good idea gone bad. The bait and switch is now evident. It was advertised as a way for state government to achieve better outcomes with less money, but the reality is proving much different from the spin. The result of many of the proposed changes will be cost-shifting to local communities, less enforcement of laws that protect our quality of life, and less access to services our families need. In other words, worse, rather than better, outcomes.
Releasing non-violent offenders is a good goal that will save state money, but we must think through the consequences and understand that our local communities will face higher costs to support these folks as they come back into the community. We cannot just release them and count that as a savings.
It’s possible that we could be more efficient in our economic development strategies, but simply eliminating regional development corporations and regional planning commissions to consolidate them into state-sponsored agencies takes focus away from our local communities, where economic development needs to happen. It also takes away local control.
Certainly, the permit process could be more streamlined; however, shifting the responsibility for permit review to private business and reducing enforcement efforts is not the answer. The proposals in “Challenges” may actually result in a slower permit process and more pollution, just as the water quality of Lake Champlain is getting worse.
In addition, “Challenges” does not even achieve the targeted savings. Even if all of the proposed changes were acceptable, we would not achieve the $38 million in savings that we need.
Despite this shortfall and despite the consequences of the changes, “Challenges” is being pushed through the legislative process at breakneck speed. I reject this crisis mentality. We have other options. We should use those options and make a thorough examination of the proposals before us in “Challenges.”
The architects of “Challenges for Change” have created an apparent emergency to rush the proposals through, claiming that the only other choice is severe cuts to essential services. We have money paid by taxpayers sitting in the state’s piggy bank – the rainy day fund – that could be used for some of the budget gap that is to be filled with “Challenges” changes. We are also expecting to receive more federal Medicaid money that can be used to fill other holes in the budget.
As a committee chair, my responsibility is to thoroughly consider any proposals put before me through the committee process. Many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate share my concerns and are beginning to ask serious questions about the reasons for and the consequences of these proposals. Any wholesale changes to our service delivery system must be examined carefully – both to determine whether savings will actually be achieved and also to ensure that Vermonters retain access to services they need.
I will not allow these changes to be made unless the process is thorough, transparent, and truthful. Some of the ideas in “Challenges for Change” are good ones, and they must be examined, considered thoughtfully, and implemented. However, we must not make these changes in haste and without deliberation, despite the challenge. Vermonters deserve better from us.
-Doug Racine
http://dougracine.com/
I like it Mr. Racine. It’s a courageous move. Seriously though. What took you so long?
Is the Douglas Administration (DA) much smarter than the combined legislature?
Shouldn’t it have been clear from the start that the DA was putting together the challenges strategy behind closed doors and the result would be just what the DA always wanted?
Then they maneuvered it so that the budget was passed before the the challenge strategy was out there.
Shouldn’t it be clear now that they haven’t put on the table where the other 8 million in cuts is going to come from?
Senator Racine has bravely come out in the past for the need for an income tax surcharge (the only candidate that I know of that has done this – – please correct me if I am wrong).
The good points in the challenges program should proceed (with proper funding and/or cuts to allow them to work effectively). The bad aspects should be discarded for this year and any shortfall made up with an income tax surcharge if necessary.
Some of these ideas can be examined in greater detail after this session ends to see if they can be viable in the future.
Norm
Look at the missed opportunities: CT river dams and wind for green energy, and local jobs.
Instead of conservative men leading the way with a businesslike vision, they prefer to throw women and children under their chauffeured wheels, and motor off to their country club “public” meetings.
Finally some real leadership from a Democrat. Go Doug Go!!
Doug:
Wow, that’s incredible that a bill for single–payer, designing three systems, actually got beyond the floor of the senate and is now going up for the house to vote on. I was not able to make it today, but heard later that it had passed. Excellent. For the first time I am beginning to feel like their is some light down there somewhere. Please, for the sake of all of us, keep pushing.
I also agree with you about challenges. There’s a reason why Douglas is pushing so hard and so fast for it, and I wonder how many gop benefactors will be rewarded with private contracts with taxpayer dollars because of this change. Is there a way to stop the steamrolling?
For the last 30 years, ever since Reagan, it has been nothing but a war against the helpless, the vulnerable, and the Douglas challenges is one more round in that war. Thanks for standing up to it.
Now it’s time to turn the “Challenges for Change” engine around before it becomes a train-wreck.
The same folks who created the VT “Challenges for Change” report also created the “Zoom into Change” report for Iowa in 2004. Six years later, what headline appears in yesterday’s DesMoines Register?
It looks like Iowa’s experience with 6 years of “savings” from the Public Service Group’s revenue and services decimation program (no matter what “chumpy, changey” name they use for it) has left Iowa with a big fat budget deficit. These fabulous savings have drained their rainy day fund and used up all their federal stimulus money, and yet, the hole remains. Did you notice: they’re re-reorganizing, too. Apparently, just like in the corporate world, where reorganization is code for “failing and flailing,” Iowa is finding that the “Zoom into Change” was mostly the fast road to failure.
Did anyone in Vermont’s political leadership take the time to talk to, say, anyone in Iowa to determine what happened to their state budget and state services since this charade was implemented there?
Why do we let these economic charlatans roll us, over and over again? What ever happened to due diligence?
You’re setting yourself apart- which as everyone here knows is pretty much the only task of the 5 dems at this point. Come out strong, ask for a Progressive Party endorsement and expect organized labor to follow. It used to be a toss up between you and Dunne but as of the last few days you have my vote.
However, this doesn’t exempt you from the revolution should it arise during your term 😉
“Releasing non-violent offenders is a good goal that will save state money, but we must think through the consequences and understand that our local communities will face higher costs to support these folks as they come back into the community. We cannot just release them and count that as a savings.”
How will local communities face higher costs? Higher then keeping them in jail (which is paid for by our tax dollars, weather funneled through the fed, state or the local community)? Even if it does cost more to release them (which seems unlikely to me) isn’t it a better investment for our state and communities to integrate them back into being productive members of society then to keep them in jail?
but how about following it up with some form of legislative ammendment that protects the existing systemss from Jim and the JFC or whatever body taking an axe to everything when the balloon crashes over the summer??? Maybe a fallback to the Snelling plan if savings dont appear as the cracked crystal ball predicts???
We need something on paper before you walk out the door to keep the lame duck and his miniMe at bay. What can we expect from the Senate???
Great job on the healthcare piece… your committee put a lot of work into that legislation and your leadership is written all over it…. no amount of claimed “polish” from other sources should be considered. Thanks for that great start on setting a national example.
In such an active campaign, it’s important to take a look at the resources being generated on the trail — and to recognize that Matt Dunne has been clear that the Challenges for Change proposal is the wrong approach for Vermont. Matt has consistently said that this is not the right way to do budgeting and is a mistake in many different ways. It’s critically important that Doug has come around to this view with the process continuing to proceed at high speed in Montpelier.
That’s enough editorializing from me. I’d strongly encourage everyone to take a look at the archived video of the Vermont Public Television debate from a week ago — and while I hope you have the time to watch the entire hour and a half with the MANY important issues discussed, in the interest of saving you time, Matt’s Challenges for Change answer starts at 74:55.
http://video.vpt.org/video/145…
Wednesday morning, Matt also posted the following statement on Challenges on his Facebook page, in case you didn’t see it: http://www.facebook.com/mattdu…
“Challenges for Change process is causing significant concern and anger throughout Vermont.
Change is necessary, but the process has not been transparent, some recommendations are clearly penny-wise and pound foolish, and more disturbing is the inclusion of massive policy changes, particularly on school governance, that has been put under this umbrella for expediency. Trust is in short supply, when it is what is needed most to bring effective change.
I do not envy the task of my former colleagues and offer any help I can provide in navigating this difficult time. We all need to come together as a state to make sure we make the changes that are clearly needed, but avoid doing harm or advancing agendas that are not connected to the task at hand. The Brattleboro Reformer editorial is very powerful and I encourage you to read it and get involved in this critical time: http://bit.ly/dyMDmI ”
Stay tuned for more thoughts from Matt on this critical issue.
~ David, Matt Dunne for Vermont
We need the draconian marijuana laws reformed. There is no excuse, except for profit, to put people that just want to get high behind bars. But our prisons have become a huge cash cow and a vast moneymaker so it only makes sense. Half the offenders in there are probably made worse by being put in there in the first place. It’s time we grew up from gop fantasies of locking everyone up.