After the great flood of 1927, the Federal Government offered to send money to Vermont to help rebuild the infrastructure. Vermont said, “No thanks,” and went it alone. Now we have to replace many of the bridges that were built 80 years ago.

In 1991*, Vermont faced a huge budget deficit. Republican Governor Richard Snelling went to House Speaker Ralph Wright and proposed removing partisan bickering in finding a solution. The result was painful spending cuts and temporary increases in the income tax. No one liked the plan, but it passed, and more importantly, it worked.

This year, Lamoille Senator Susan Bartlett came forward with a plan for the Federal Government drop its requirement that states pay a percentage of transportation projects. This would allow cash-strapped states to immediately put people to work on repairing roads and bridges. The money is budgeted; the projects are ready to be done. It is an elegant solution.

Treasurer Jeb Spaulding came forward with a plan to use a small increase in gasoline taxes to leverage a bond issue to improve our infrastructure, again putting people to work and doing much-needed repairs. Another imaginative solution that bears discussion; if we cannot take advantage of Vermont’s stellar bond rating for sensible projects that will stimulate our economy in tough times, what is the point of having it?

Democrats Bartlett and Spaulding have come forward with plans that will lower unemployment in Vermont, improve our quality of life and make the state more attractive to business. They may not be the right solutions but they bear discussion. The marketplace is hungry for work, so Vermont’s cost of building projects will never be cheaper.

Governor Jim Douglas takes a traditional approach: no tax increases and cut spending. He appears happy to make it easier to spend Federal money, but he is opposed to any Vermont solution that calls for sacrifice from anyone but our poorest citizens. He proposes old solutions and rhetoric in the face of unprecedented challenges.

We rebuilt our bridges during the last great depression without help. We balanced our budget and provided services in the 1980s by asking all Vermonters to pitch in. It is time for us to rise to the challenge again.

If we are to be successful, we will need more fresh thinking and less partisan platitudes. Cooperation between political parties will be necessary and an open mind in all corners essential in the challenges ahead. Bartlett and Spaulding should be applauded for beginning the dialog.

Governor Douglas, won’t you join the conversation?

*CORRECTION: Corrected year to 1991. Was “1981” as originally posted.

From VPR:

The chairman of the Vermont Senate’s Judiciary Committee says lawmakers may want to consider expanding the power of legislative committees to subpoena witnesses and take testimony under oath.

Senator Richard Sears says his panel was frustrated at times in recent months during hearings looking into how Vermont responds to sex crimes against children…

…Legislative committees currently can issue subpoenas only with the approval of the full Senate or House or both.

It’s a sentiment certainly repeated ofttimes at this site, but not simply for compelling testimony on this one issue. The fact is that Vermont’s Legislature cedes an inordinate amount of power to the Governor – and the lack of oversight with any teeth is a huge part of that problem. The only thing preventing the Legislature from implementing a more aggressive check-and-balance system like that at the federal level (or in many other states) is, well… the Legislature itself. And we’re not talking a change in law but a change in the rules of how the Legislature conducts itself.

It’s a change long overdue.

VPR had a good story this morning contrasting the approaches that Richard Snelling took to the huge budget deficits we were facing in 1991 and the approach Douglas is taking today.

It's worth a listen. The story points out that although Douglas considers Snelling his mentor, heis taking the exact opposite course, refusing to even consider tax increases on any segment of the population to address our current and coming deficits.

Of course, that's no surprise. What we have learned to expect from Douglas's years on the Fifth Floor are two things: rigidity and demagoguery, and they are both amply demonstrated in the story.

In addition, there is a striking contrast between Snelling's willingness to walk across to Speaker Ralph Wright's offce without preconditions and work out a plan for deficit reduction, and Douglas's “my way or the highway” approach to dealing with that pesky legislative branch.

What should also not go unheeded is Bob Kinzel's last observation:

Legislative leaders seem to agree with Douglas that the 2009 deficit can be erased without raising taxes but there's less agreement if this policy can be maintained for the 2010 budget.

 We have a nearly 2-1 advantage in the House, a more than 3-1 advantage in the Senate, and our leaders won't even talk about raising taxes, evenon the richest segment of the population, to address a crisis?

What the hell is going on here?