( – promoted by Sue Prent)
I agree with Dubie yet again on fiscal issues:
Well I think there are some housewives that are listening to this radio that think they could probably do a better job than has been done.
This stay-at-home-dad or "househusband" takes issue with the anachronistic, not-so-vaguely-sexist "housewives" remark, but let's set that aside. I agree with Dubie's inartful point: households can and must do a better job on budgetary issues than the Legislature and Governor have done recently.
Unfortunately, I think the Lite Guv has sorta missed his own point, perhaps because when you have lots of fungible money in your own finances, you think making spending choices is easy. Not so when you're living paycheck-to-paycheck and have certain mandatory spending that doesn't change just because a bad economy has shrunk your income. I'm sorry if that's an ad hominem, but I have a feeling in my gut about this guy that makes me think he's never had to balance a household budget the way the rest of us do.
Okay back to the main issue. A lot of people, not just Dubie, have used such analogies as a justification for cutting government spending. They suggest that "if a regular family has to balance their budget, the government should as well."
All analogies break down with time, and this one evaporates faster than a dog fart in an autumn breeze (my off-color version of "that dog won't hunt"). Private citizens, of course, don't enjoy the same economies of scale that a government does, nor have access to vast potential revenues in the same manner.
But let's take the analogy as more or less sound. The subtext is that households can't spend more money than they make, so they cut items out of their budgets.
That's true for the most part. Us regular folks will perhaps reduce expenditures by cutting their cable bill, not buying so much beer, skipping vacations, etc. Yet there is a certain amount of spending that is not discretionary, such as for shelter, food, healthcare, school supplies, transportation, etc. You don't buy gas, you can't get to work and you can't generate income. You don't feed your family, you are less healthy and your kids do worse in school. Miss your mortgage payment, you incur penalties and risk losing your home.
Speaking of mortgages, Dubie is aware they are a form of debt, right? As in, I "own" my home only by virtue of borrowing money from a bank. In other words, I've essentially spent more on a house than I make because I'm investing in my economic security and have included the amortized monthly payments into my budget calculations.
So borrowing isn't inherently a bad thing. Without it, most Vermonters would not be homeowners. Nor could they afford the cars they need to get to work since we don't have very good public transit, at least out in the rural areas where my family lives.
What's more, don't businesses take out loans to buy equipment, upgrade facilities and otherwise expand (or even get started in the first place)? Of course they do. It's just a part of doing business, and it takes money to make money.
Thus I'm left scratching my head about why the government should avoid debt at all costs and balance the budget for the sake of balancing the budget. Instead of borrowing a little bit of money when it could do a lot of good, why should we cut important human services–the equivalent of a family cutting food spending below the USRDA–that impact the most vulnerable and hinder economic stimulus and growth?
I'm especially confused when I see the state's CFO say things like this:
Spending the reserves for other reasons is a bad idea for several reasons, Reardon cautioned. For one thing, it would be using "one-time" money to cover ongoing expenses. For another, it would look bad to Wall Street, which has so far granted Vermont very high bond ratings.
So rather than be fiscally responsible and dip into savings a little, or borrow a little money, we'll just cut services so we have a better bond rating? Um, isn't the point of bond ratings to help you…borrow money? Quite a disconnect.
I think the larger problem is exemplified by legislative committee members who are stuck in an instutional and intellectual rut:
The legislators who lead the so-called "money committees" that oversee spending and taxes agree.
"Those rainy day funds are there as our overdraft protection," Sen. Ann Cummings, D-Washington, chairwoman of the Senate Finance Committee. "Once we spend them, they are gone."
Rep. Michael Obuchowski, D-Bellows Falls, chairman of House Ways and Means and the Joint Fiscal Committee that meets to manage money when the full Legislature is away, agreed.
Money committee members have agreed "not to use them until it is apparent we are on the road to recovery" at least, Obuchowski said. That way, the money can be used as a springboard out of the recession.
Yes, once monies are spent, they are gone. That is, unless you're using them to create the necessary recovery and replenish them responsibly when revenues increase, as we've done in the past. It's part of the reason for stimulus: get the economy going so you can start saving again for the next rainy day.
But to wait until there is a recovery to "springboard" out of the recession? That's completely backwards, and shows just how much legislators are mired in a form of learned helplessness, waiting for the dysfunctional Federal government to do its job and/or for the recovery to just sorta magically happen without the State being an empowered actor using resources available to it.
These people are saying, "yeah it's raining, but I don't want my umbrella to get wet, so I'll use it when the clouds are breaking up and the sun starts to come out." In the meantime, we all get soaked from the stuff trickling, er…pouring down.
Back to households again: when times are tight, you cut what you can (discretionary things), dip into savings (it's for a new roof next summer and also for emergencies) and look for more income (taking on another job). A responsible, balanced approach.
So yes, I agree that "housewives" can do better than the State has. It's because they aren't just dealing with abstract numbers and political ideology, but with economic reality and family members who rely on them.
todd
PS–Here are a few good sources of information about our so-called rainy day funds, which aren't quite smoke and mirrors but certainly involve some accounting mechanisms that might seem opaque to the casual observer:
- It’s Raining Hard: Tap the Fund
- SUMMARY ISSUE BRIEF: Use of State Reserve Funds
- No cash in Vermont's Rainy Day fund
(x-posted at Todd for Vermont House)
Loading ...
My contribution to the subject:
Dubie seems to think that it’s OK to take away the bread crumbs we currently toss to the hungry, to re-relegate special needs kids to institutions instead of educating them to lead the most productive lives they can, and to kick Mom & Pop businesses to the curb in favor of the big boys who will send our hard earned dollars out of state to line the already well-stuffed pockets of large corporate directors and their heirs.
Hi, I have been campaigning on the platform that the means at our disposal to correct the economy lies in the rebuilding of a monetary industry for Vermont from the ground up. With the State Bank, the Common Good Banks, the VUE, the VT Credit card, and the Wall Street Sales tax, we can and will be able to become altogether recession proof.
The low wages that most make are due to the issues around the redistribution of wealth to the new and existing small business owners, and the lack of credit they can get for expansion, or start-up, not to mention a few other problems like the rising cost of energy. But that rising cost should instead be viewed as opportunity. Opportunity that could be massively invested in were we calling the shots as to what we create credit for and at what interest rate, perhaps without interest at all !!! The VUE is our answer to the criminal nature of a minimum wage. A liveable wage HAS got to be a minimum wage, or we put our people in a catch 22. We have got to permit time to live life, after working full time.
I will also add the following comment that I made on ibrattleboro, as the issues are completely related. Thank you for reading. My website is http://www.vermontforward.com
I am happy that this is being brought into the public debate, there is so much wrong with our criminal justice industry. It is a complete misnomer to name this a “corrections” industry, it doesn’t ‘correct’ behavior, in fact. It sequesters number of individuals, and labels them as subhuman. ” Offenders, criminals, etc…,” The overriding principle appears to be that if some people get locked away erroneously, the mistake is worth the safety of the rest. Our very fabric of society is torn apart by the chaos and fear perpetrated by the criminal justice industry itself. We should seek to see the humane person behind the improper and abusive behavior rather than lock them up and throw away the key- because they do get out, and they are not “corrected”.
It should come into public discussion the fact that police officers are working for the District Attorneys and their reports are supportive of a conviction, in other words they are hardly impartial witnesses, or even stable individuals as easily described by the incidents of suicides of police officers which are multiples o regular rates for other citizens. The State Attorneys work for the conviction rates, it is their conviction rates that they feel will get them reelected. Thus it is common practice to see police exaggerate the basis of charges and DA exaggerate charges just to intimidate a person into accepting a plea deal for less. I am certain that many people are in jail because they accepted a deal simply from the fear of whether the jury would find them guilty on exaggerated charges, even though they feel innocent.
Today I spoke with a man who said a friend of his worked in ‘corrections” and said that 90% of the women in there are mules who were carrying for their boyfriends, and convicted. That they didn’t need to be there.
We are not safer when we lock up more and more of our people ! We are fascist.
Today we have 25% of the world’s prisoners and 5% of the world’s population. Speaking of criminals, the savings and loan crisis in the 90’s sent over a 1000 people to jail, but this crisis has had neither one person sent to jail nor one person prosecuted. The criminal justice industry is not in the least interested in “correcting” behavior at its apex, it is interested in disrupting lives, causing chaos, rather than healing misbehavior, if you want to heal misbehavior you do not do it by the means this industry uses. Fear used as a tool so that we are all afraid of each other, as if we are about to be attacked any moment, that keeps the working class in bondage to the bar association.
The solutions to create a more peaceful society are here.They include use of citizen grand juries, greater use of mentoring, restorative justice.
As a victim, I never felt that my perpetrators were helped or healed from incarceration. I have also witnessed police perpetrating crimes against citizens, routinely, without come up-ance. Furthermore the police are out to protect their own and do not act outside of that purview.
Lastly, using the police force to generate revenue ( counting on traffic tickets etc) is improper and creates a bias. The police need to be able to serve PEACE, and the ends of Peace itself, thus, the better they do , the fewer criminals, the fewer convictions, the safer we are.
I am an independet for Governor purposefully to bring the problem of criminlization of our society into public debate. I like every one else am invested in my own personal safety, but too often, it is the police that are a threat to my safety, and I find I can steer clear of criminals by the company I keep. I feel the police themselves are not served by their industry, I would like to see their role move to one of promting peace, rather than protecting and serving the bar association and the upper classes. As a victim of a major crime, I can tell you that I wanted to see the perpetrators understand what they did, and show to me taht they did, I wanted to be involved in the ‘sentence”, the jail time they did did nothing to reassure me that they would emerge stronger and better people. in fact quite the contrary.
There is a movie just out at first run, I hear, called ” The Experiment”, a worthwhile watch.
In reality, unless we address the fact that minimum wage breeds criminal answers and somehow increase abundance so that people CAN earn a living (and still have time to live life when they are through), I will state that the laws that have been written by lawmakers that have contributed to this reality are injuctice in action. Thus my propositions to rebuild the monetary industry to benefit the working people of Vermont will do much to decrease criminal behavior.
See you in and around !