State governmental budgets are arcane things to the uninitiated – or if not, they are at the very least time-sucking, brain-squashing things for those who have enough to worry about already. As such, we lean on what's in the press or what we hear from advocacy groups on what the details are.  In this budget, we've all heard grumblings from advocates (myself included) about the inadequacies of the budget passed by the Legislature, but how it is miles above what's come from the Governor's office.

Here, then, are some points of comparison (in terms of program cuts), in plain english (Note: What the following list does not cover is the implications of the Governor's plan on local property taxes… look for a diary Monday on that):

• The legislature’s budget does not cut monthly management reimbursements to doctors. Compare that to the Douglas budget, which cuts over $5.2 million in monthly management reimbursements to primary care doctors (this proposal would result in an average cut of almost $6,200 a year for 828 doctors around the state… but, 55 doctors would have to absorb cuts from $20,000 to over $70,000 a year.)
• The legislature cuts the Vermont Housing and Conservation board by about 50 percent to around $6 million in FY10, while the governor’s budget cuts VHCB an even more whopping 85 percent – an additional $5 million – basically killing the whole highly successful affordable housing and conservation program (that Douglas has had in his sights since well before the financial crisis) dead.
• The legislature’s budget makes a painful $480,000 cut to the Department of Children and Families. The governor, on the other hand, cuts more than $2.2 million.

More on the flip (including comparative impacts on state employees):

• The amount paid for dental care under Medicaid — currently $495 a year – is protected under the legislature’s budget, while the governor would cut Medicaid dental coverage to $200 a year
• On employee cuts: The legislature’s budget calls for $14.7 million in cost cuts. It stipulates that $11 million will fall on union employees, $2.4 million on non-union positions and $1.3 million will come in the form of cuts to contracts. Not stuff to feel good about, but contrast that against the governor’s plan which makes an additional $2.3 million in cuts to state employees (and you know would disproportionately hit the union employees since – as with the property tax bomb he’s dropping – Douglas is seeing the entire financial meltdown as an opportunity to play executive union-buster). That right there totals $17 million, and the governor included another $3 million in cuts to personal service contracts, bring the total in payroll cuts to $20 million. Clearly, the difference here is not insignificant (especially to a lot of employees who would otherwise get cut).

  There are details to the legislative proposals around the employee cuts – ideas designed to make the whole thing less painful, such as giving the legislature a role in deciding who gets laid off and encouraging early retirements. They’re worth worth breaking out in a separate diary, warts and all.

  While there’s a big difference between the leg and the gov here, we’re unquestionably looking at two decidedly un-pretty scenarios.

More on this tomorrow – specifically a look at the governor’s claim that only he is looking ahead to further budget problems in fiscal 2011, and that his perspective justifies the draconian cuts he prefers.

And stay tuned for Monday’s really big property tax show.

All of these numbers, of course, are made possible by the fine people at the Joint Fiscal Office who are all far smarter than I.