Until I see a comparable “Master List of Revenue Ideas” (and, yes, that includes budgeting in the Rainy Day Fund) on the Joint Fiscal site, I see no reason to accept any admonitions that we should all be patient and understanding on how the budget is being approached by the Legislative Democratic leadership. There is one tune being played right now in any meaningful way – and it is the Governor’s tune: cut, cut, cut.

Yes, there are signs that the Dems on Joint Fiscal know other tunes, they just need to start singing them when on the stage. For example, via the Banner (ht JB):

Sears said lawmakers will likely consider other methods of balancing the budget, such as raising additional revenues and tapping the state’s “rainy day funds.”

“It’s clear to me that we’re not going to raise that kind of revenue. We’re going to have to make cuts, but I also think we should look at the rainy day funds as well,” he said. “I believe that’s one thing that we’re going to have to deal with and we’re going to have a disagreement with the administration on.”

What I would like to know from Senator Sears is what we can do to help him amplify that message. A reference in his County Paper does not offset the messaging and methods that emerged from the Joint Fiscal Committee, of which he is a member (and yes, I understand the limits of what Joint Fiscal can and can’t do, but this is first a battle of ideas, and we can’t lose it at stage 1). Sears’s message is the right message, but it needs to come through the right medium. Wink, wink, nudge nudge empathetic messages to constituents on the side amount to squat, quite frankly.

Also on Joint Fiscal is incoming Speaker Smith, who’s views were characterized this way by Shay Totten:

Despite the stance of his Senate colleagues, incoming House Speaker Shap Smith (D-Morrisville) said it’s premature to rule out anything – including targeted, and short-lived, tax increases.

Again, vagueries are meaning less and less – especially given that every legislator that may be outwardly forward-thinking but is secretly afraid of promoting targeted revenue increases (and I mean carefully targeted, progressive ones… not all tax-raising is inherently dangerous in a recession, but some most definitely is) or equally afraid the tapping the rainy day fund, is going to have a scapegoat to point at if such ideas end up fizzling:  

Peter Shumlin. The Senate leader, as well as Majority Leader John Campbell, are becoming the poster boys for the “Fiscal Conservatism = Republican economics” game, usually indicative of Dems who are looking to run for higher office and want Republican support. Shumlin has not always been there ideologically (not that he hasn’t always considered himself a “fiscal conservative”), but hopes for pulling him back from the brink are pretty limited by the absolutist no-new-taxes-period rhetoric he’s been hitting the media with. He’s left very little wiggle room for a reasoned, everything-on-the-table approach (and his repeated contention that Catamount will not “survive” further suggests skewed priorities).

Liberals would be unwise to paint Shumlin into a corner, though – or, more accurately, to allow Shumlin to paint himself into a corner. Shumlin may have a reputation as a savvy operator, but he is (I think) genuinely insensitive to, and frustrated by, the effect his words have on people; what lines are heard, what gets reported, and how people respond. There is a real impulsive quality to Shumlin’s speaking. It’s what makes him an effective crowd-pleaser in stump-style settings (I recall in a 2003 Orange County candidate forum, his response to a question about how Vermont should deal with some of the more heinous mandates of the No Child Left Behind law was “I’d tell them to keep their money and go to hell.”). It’s also what makes him drop unexpected bombshells in policy pronouncements that often eclipse his main message and create backlashes.

The point is, despite what his not-always-well-considered rhetoric suggests, Shumlin is not an immoveable object in this. Advocates shouldn’t fall into the easy trap of allowing him the role of “bad cop” unchallenged, because it will make it easier for those “good cops” that are too squeamish to lead to have an out for any potential controversies over revenue increases (“I wanted to do the right thing, but there was no getting past Shumlin!”).

Damn. This was going to be, like a three paragraph diary. What the hell happened?

In any event, the mantra, it seems to me, should be: responsible cuts, progressive revenue increases, hit the rainy day fund.