(GMD promotes candidate diaries   – promoted by Caoimhin Laochdha)

I just had this posted to my website and wanted GMD readers to see it right away. I am happy to hear your comments and answer your questions. Please send them to susan@bartlettforgovernor.com

Susan

Vision for Vermont’s Energy Future

We Need a Long-Range Plan

A major issue we face now is the lack of a comprehensive energy plan. Where will our base load energy come from for the next 20 years? How can we expand our use of renewable energy and have it become truly affordable?

As governor I will create a blue ribbon panel of Vermont experts in the energy field to create a 5, 10 and 20 year plan for moving Vermont to a locally produced, reliable energy future. The impact of this planning, and supporting legislation, is as important as Act 250 was to preserve our landscape in the 1970s.

Read on …

Vermont Yankee

I cannot foresee any circumstances that would persuade me to support the operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant beyond its long scheduled 2012 closing date. Vermont needs to turn the page on VY and focus on meeting our energy needs from other sources of energy with an ever-increasing emphasis on energy efficiency and conservation.

Almost every transition creates some hardships and when Vermont Yankee closes in 2012 there will be changes in jobs and a loss of jobs. On the other hand we know that every transition creates opportunities. We know this transition is coming and as governor I will work between now and 2012 to mitigate the negative affects.

The current number of jobs at the plant is approximately 900 and upon closing it is estimated there will be a loss of 300 jobs in the first year. We know that moving the plant to SAFSTOR keeps a number of jobs at the plant for many years. If the plant moves to decommissioning, literally taking the plant apart, there are a number of jobs created for the process of disassembling the plant. This not only provides the benefit of the total removal of the plant, but also allows for additional time to create new jobs in the energy field.

In the consensus economic and fiscal impact analyses associated with the future of Vermont Yankee, they show an increase in jobs over several years if we as a state make investments in efficiency, conservation and renewables. Using the money in the Clean Energy Fund, money from a fee the state receives from Vermont Yankee for dry cask storage (this will continue as long as the casks are there) we can invest millions of dollars a year into the creation of new energy jobs.

Given the significant transmission infrastructure development surrounding Vermont Yankee, I believe it is important to explore the generation opportunities that could be locally sited. This could be biomass that would create construction jobs and long-term timber production and logging and forestry jobs. I believe it is important to explore the possibility of a natural gas fired plant on the site, which would provide many high paying jobs.

Conservation and Energy Efficiency

Energy efficiency is the least expensive and cleanest source of electrical energy. Energy efficiency investments create jobs because energy efficiency improvements are labor intensive and local. Besides creating jobs, the money saved generated by efficiency improvements stays with the consumer, helping all of Vermont’s economy. Vermont has a long and strong tradition of investment in energy efficiency and should continue its investment. It will reduce our use of electricity as well as the use of energy to heat our homes while creating jobs in the hard-hit construction industry.

We are in the process of changing Efficiency Vermont into an all-fuels utility. That will be a huge help to all homeowners as they learn how many ways they can save not just electricity, but all other forms of energy.

Small Hydro

Vermont has a number of small hydroelectric facilities. With moderate improvements to make them run more efficiently, they will remain an important Vermont resource. Expansion of our wind farms, wood-fired generation, solar generation and farm and landfill methane projects will also be needed.

Wind

Industrial wind power is the most-talked about form of renewable energy because it is the most controversial. I am not willing to give up our beautiful ridge lines to wind turbines without a comprehensive plan for our energy future. Once we know where we are going, we need to streamline the permit process and allow folks not only in the town where they are located, but people in surrounding towns a voice as well.

Biomass

Biomass is a great source of energy for Vermont and must be part of our energy mix. It will create jobs and can generate not only heat, but also electricity through co-generation. There are several plans in the works to heat entire areas of towns from one plant. We have biomass plants generating electricity now and another on the way.

I have supported a group up in the islands called the Farmer’s Watershed Alliance and they have been working on best practices to help clean up water’s that drain into our streams and ponds and lakes. One of the other projects they have been working on is bio-diesel. They can produce bio-diesel from their seeds crops (canola and sunflower) for $1.70 a gallon…it costs them $2.70 to buy it! The by-product of the pressing is very high in protein and they use it to feed their calves and don’t have to buy grain. Talk about a win/win for the farmer, for the environment and for energy use. I can foresee whole farms making fuel to sell locally at a profit.

Solar

Vermont spends a lot of money buying power for our public buildings. A long-term plan could have us equipping them with solar panels that generate more power than they use. This will benefit our schools and other public facilities and help to lower taxes once we have paid for the equipment.

Supporting Programs

Our SPEED feed-in tariff for renewable energy is a perfect example of how we can develop local resources. Vermont also needs to have a mix of long-term fixed-price contracts with renewable generation in New England. The Hydro-Quebec contract is not a fixed price contract and it does not protect Vermonters from high electric prices in the future.

The Smart Grid should be fully developed. Right now the potential of the smart grid is unknown, but can become an important piece of conservation. I do not think that individual utilities will necessarily develop this process to its full capacity. My administration will provide strong leadership to the regulators to ensure we can maximize the efficiency of the use of grid resources.

Climate Change

We all live on this planet and no one can ignore the global changes that man has made on it. We cannot continue with the relatively unrestrained abuse of our planet’s air, water and soil without dire consequences. Although the science supporting climate change has been continually challenged by a small but vocal group of skeptics, as the body of scientific knowledge has grown, the debate has mostly shifted from whether it is real to how best to control it. I believe it is real and I refer you to my definition of a green economy.

Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas that is produced in Vermont by the burning of fossil fuel for home heating, transportation and electric power demand. State and federal policies that promote efficiency reduce the need to burn fuel. For home heating, building codes, energy efficiency initiatives like Efficiency Vermont, extending federal tax energy efficiency credits and federal appliance efficiency standards are effective tools. In the area of transportation we need to develop real systems of public transportation.

Green Economy

The next priority is ensuring that Vermont leads in the use of clean energy and that we develop a plan for how we best create a green economy.

I think that the Green Economy is much more than green energy. For me it is today’s reusing, reducing and recycling model. The Green Economy is about renewables and conservation, waste management, sustainable transportation and buying local. It’s about putting systems in place that will lead us all to an economy that is based on lowering our carbon footprint as individuals and as society as a whole. A Green Economy is a sustainable economy.

I believe that there are many different jobs created as we move towards a green economy. Certainly there are many jobs created when we support making our homes and places of work more energy efficiency, when we build bike paths, when we install solar panels and wind turbines. I believe the longer lasting jobs will be created by the innovation that we Vermonters develop as we develop a Green Economy.

It’s not building the wind turbine, it is creating the technology that makes the turbine a better turbine and then getting a patent on that technology that creates the jobs and grows our economy long term. It’s the system of waste management that is innovative and patented that creates the long-term economic development. It’s the innovative ideas and equipment we develop to clean up Lake Champlain that will attract and keep young people in Vermont. It is the many spin-off companies that can grow from the innovations in any field of the green economy. If we become the home of innovation and intellectual property (patents) we will grow the economy and keep and attract young people to Vermont.

Public Transportation

As I drive past our Park and Rides, they are not filled to capacity right now and I would venture a guess that public transit is not filled. Obviously when gas is really expensive, we will leave our cars, but most of the time we are still wed to our individual automobiles. I believe that using dollars to modernize our public transit system is very important and that as a state we have to be willing to support public transit for a number of years before we change our habits. As governor I would institute programs that promotes public transportation as a way to save money for individuals and a way to help lower our over all carbon footprint.

I believe that rail can become an important part of our public transit system. As we receive the federal dollars to upgrade our rail beds, I believe that commuter runs between places like St. Albans to Montpelier and Bennington to Rutland can become an important piece of commuting in Vermont. There is interest, followed by dollars, in Washington that has not existed for many years and as governor I would have a plan in place to show that there is definitely interest in reliable public transit, by rail, for everyday commuters. It will take time to change our habits and it will take a long-term commitment to create these changes.

Circumferential Highway

Thirty-five years ago the Circumferential Highway was the reflection of the thinking of the day; ways to go around cities for all of those cars. Today there is more of a desire to get us out of our individual cars and onto public transit. The land has been purchased and many communities planned their growth around the idea of a circ highway. Our world has changed in 35 years and what once was a perfect solution may not now be the best idea. With the new environmental study, as governor I would get the businesses and communities most affected to work together to decide what really is the best use of our dollars. The dollars used to build a major highway would go a long way to establish a modern public transit system that addressed the needs of commuters and communities.

It All Must Come Together

Again, what we need is a long-term energy plan for our state that addresses both generation and use of not only electricity, but also fossil fuel. My administration will make certain that one is developed. There are so many exciting things happening around all forms of energy that I am certain that Vermont can lead the country in sustainable energy use.

Let’s work together to bring new leadership to the governor’s office, to build a better future based on Vermont’s values and traditions.

(Continuing GMD policy of promoting diaries by officeholders and officeseekers. – promoted by GMD)

I am glad Governor Douglas did not veto S.138, the bill to allow merchants to place a $10 minimum limit on credit card purchases to become law without his signature. I agree that this is a situation that needs to be addressed on a national level and join him in encouraging our congressional delegation to make that happen, but this is an issue we needed to address in Vermont immediately.

Vermont has been a leader on many issues and this is an important issue to lead once again. I trust business owners and feel quite certain that if they think setting a minimum purchase hurts their business, then they won’t set a minimum. Others are now free to do so.

I disagree that the Vermont bill will adversely affect business in Vermont. We heard testimony about fees and that is why we changed the original legislation. We were careful not to put at risk the use of certain credit cards in Vermont or to significantly reduce or eliminate the threat of loss of access to certain credit cards.

Once again, Vermont leads as the first state in the nation to pass legislation like this and I am proud to have been a part of that effort. We have taken one small step in helping Vermont merchants educate the public about the cost of credit cards and have enabled the merchants to save money. That sounds like a win to me.  

(Continuing GMD policy of promoting diaries by officeholders and officeseekers. – promoted by GMD)

When you run for higher office, or any office for that matter, part of the campaign promise is, “I’ll work for better, more, green, whatever … jobs.” Well, who could be opposed to that idea?

The real question is, what will the next governor do to actually help make that promise a reality? What’s the vision or the plan to make this happen? Fair question, here’s my vision and my answer.

First, I don’t believe that government creates jobs. I believe that government can help create an environment that is supportive; making sure we have good telecommunications infrastructure, supporting job training programs and certainly helping with access to capital.

I have always believed that jobs are created locally and that for Vermont to flourish we should support our regional economic development groups and our regional planning commissions. These are the folks who know what is working in their areas, they know who needs help, and how to match the needs of local business with the available resources in the state for their part of Vermont.

That’s part one of the Bartlett administration economic development plan.

I have a new idea for how we can really grow jobs and business in Vermont. I believe that the next great opportunity for economic development for Vermont and our country is growing businesses by being good at the “processes” of innovation and intellectual property. We need to grow our strength and for years our strength has been innovation.

The first patent in the US was held by a Vermonter, Samuel Hopkins. It was in 1790 on a method of making potash as an industrial chemical for making soap, glass, fertilizers and gunpowder. Today, believe it or not, Vermont has the highest per capita number of patents in America!

Innovation and entrepreneurs have always been a part of Vermont, but so far we have failed to acknowledge them as the true job creators they could become, mainly because we have failed to see these as processes we can get good at. Just like quality processes have helped improve quality, we can grow our strengths in Innovation and Intellectual Property. Now is the time to create a culture of innovation and intellectual property that will capitalize on our strength.

Now is the time to encourage innovation in Vermont and to help our companies develop and maintain a global advantage by using intellectual property to protect those innovative ideas.

When many of us think of innovation and intellectual property, we think of high tech, very complicated ideas. The world of innovation is much more. It’s the design patents on the maple leaf shaped bottle we see so much maple syrup sold in, it’s the K-Cup plastic single-serve coffee container, and it’s the way you make that fantastic downhill sled, the Mad River Rocket.

Innovation is all around us and it should be our next great business success story. Everyone is talking about green jobs, but to create new companies or grow existing ones, it’s about getting good at innovation processes. These processes help us map out strategies, understand where the new opportunities are, figure out how to extract and capture new ideas, and it’s about the process for developing and strengthening resultant patents and trade secrets.

This will allow small Vermont companies to grow into large Vermont companies.

Patents allow tremendous leverage to a business if they are created and leveraged correctly. This leverage consists of enforcement or the fear of enforcement, giving the Vermont patent holding companies the ability to stop imitators. A small company would have a government right to stop even the largest companies from copying the creative work of Vermonters.

Patents will allow Vermont businesses to obtain licensing revenues, since most companies can’t capture the entire market itself. Small companies become much more valuable because they own their technology. This makes small companies much more attractive to investors.

Bottom line: innovation backed by intellectual property raises the value of small companies tremendously, which will create good paying Vermont jobs.

As governor I will establish a statewide office of Innovation and Intellectual Property. This would be very unique as states go and. Vermont can be a leader in this approach.

We already have many companies and experts in Vermont to help us. This office would coordinate the various pieces of our business support organizations that currently exist and identify what is working, what is needed and where it is needed. This office would educate regional economic development groups about the potential of intellectual property and would help find the correct funding instruments for Vermont companies.

The Office of Innovation and Intellectual Property would hold daylong conferences around the state to bring together companies and individuals interested in leveraging their companies further through becoming expert in innovation and intellectual property. Even basic education would be a tremendous jumpstart to Vermont companies. This would be a chance for networking, meeting sources of funding, providing consulting on obtaining patents and why it’s important. We would begin to grow the culture of innovation and intellectual property.

We need to lead our state into the new economy, where 70% of the value of most companies are in it’s intangible assets and intellectual capital and intellectual property.

The office would identify funding sources to help companies get strategic intellectual properties and use these to grow their revenues and jobs they offer. The office would coordinate connections between companies to help with cross-company innovation in fields like green energy. The office would reach outside of Vermont to bring in partners, more capital and resources.

Back in the 1950s innovation backed by technology was key to the amazing growth of Silicon Valley. I believe that the next great success will be innovation backed by intellectual property. I believe that Vermont can lead the way.

We are already funding VCET (Vermont Center of Emerging Technologies) with money for Seed Capital to help small, innovative ideas turn into success stories. We will need to develop more of these dollars through public and private cooperation to truly grow the culture of innovation.

We need to establish business incubators around the state that focus on specific areas of innovation such as medical devices, renewable energy, energy efficiency, value added foods and cleaning up the environment. The Office of Innovation and Intellectual Property would make certain that there is close collaboration between these incubators.

We have to work with our colleges to use their resources to change the business culture. Our young people need to see that Vermont can and will become the leader of new ideas and the exciting new business opportunities of tomorrow. They will help create the new jobs of the future. Our goal should be to import young people, not export our young people.

We have a wonderful opportunity to change the business culture in Vermont. We can grow our existing businesses and help Vermonters start new businesses. We can create jobs and generate prosperity. We can show our creativity through new ideas that can start new businesses, grow or reshape existing ones and engage all Vermonters to participate.

This isn’t just about high tech, it’s everything from making new soap products, marketing online, marketing infomercials, recycling trash, producing baby formulas, wind turbines, exercise equipment, ice cream and teddy bears!

We must become better at supporting innovation and intellectual property. That is the job that state government can and will help with in the Bartlett administration.

Sincerely,

Susan

(In keeping with GMD’s policy of front-paging diaries posted for state-wide office, here is the latest from Susan Bartlett. – promoted by Sue Prent)

This coming week I will bring the budget to the senate floor.  It has been a difficult year and when I was presented with an additional $17 million in deficits as the bill came from the house, I was worried about how we could make ends meet.  

The new $17 million hole was caused mainly by the non-certification of the state hospital and the cost of the new federal health care bill.  I am happy to say the budget is balanced, without making more reductions in services to Vermonters.

Read on …

Without a doubt, this budget is the most difficult that I have ever had to construct.  Balancing the needs of Vermonters of all kinds is never easy.  It appears that our revenues are holding and that there are definitely signs of a turn around in the economy.  But Vermonters are still hurting.  The business community is seeing some good signs, but we are still in the woods.  Next year will be just as difficult.  

This budget balances the needs of all Vermonters. One does not profit at the expense of another and no one gets everything they want.

There is an old saying that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  That certainly applies to looking at the state budget.  The job in appropriations, the job that I have had as chair for many years, is to balance the well-being of the whole, not just the parts.

It is always easy for one part of our society to say, “If you don’t do this for me, you don’t support us.”  Sometimes you have to say no to an idea that in isolation sounds good, but doesn’t work as part of the whole.   This is when leadership is difficult, you have to not only say no to good ideas, you have to convince others to say no.

Now more than ever we have to carefully watch our spending while maintaining important programs that work. As I have said for many years, “Prove to me that it works, not with nice stories, but with results.”  Fiscal responsibility means paying for the programs that work and being willing to end programs that do not work.   I believe that by working together we will come out of this recession stronger than we went into it, working smarter to do more with less.

Difficult times require difficult choices.  Difficult times require calm, reasoned leadership.  

(In keeping with GMD’s policy of promoting gubernatorial candidate’s first-person diaries to the front page, here is the latest from Susan Bartlett. – promoted by Sue Prent)

The biggest challenge when considering “Challenges for Change” is to stay calm and keep an open mind.

The important things to consider are the outcomes, not the administration’s ideas for how to get there. Challenges for Change is designed to eliminate drive-by budgeting and blind cuts.

The administration’s current proposal throws good programs under the bus.

Read on …

Several Senate committees, including the Appropriations committee that I chair, are looking at the administration’s ideas. I am pushing back, negotiating with the administration to make sure that we keep the programs that work. The programs that don’t work will be cut.

Challenges for Change is controversial because it is an earthquake shift in how government works. It demands that we reexamine everything from how we buy things, to what programs we pay for, in the light of results rather than intentions.

Everything we do must work to achieve the outcomes and be measurable.

I’ve heard, “We can’t do this, we can’t do that,” a lot in the past week. That says to me we need to keep government the same.

I strongly disagree.

For years I have heard from people in government and government-supported organizations. They have said many times they have ideas for how we can work better and cheaper. Now is the time for them to come forward with those ideas.

Now is not the time to say, “No, we can’t.” It is time to say, “This is how we will.”

We must save $38 million with Challenges for Change. It is an opportunity for the folks running the programs to find the savings. If they fail we’ll go back to budget cuts inflicted by the administration and next year we’ll have $75 million to add to the projected $100 million shortfall.

Change is scary. It is hard to re-imagine what we have done for years to find a new way, but that is exactly what we must do.

Meeting the outcomes of Challenges for change will require calm, open-minded leadership. I am that leader.

Let’s work together to bring new leadership to the governor’s office, to build a better future based on Vermont’s values and traditions.

(Continuing site policy of promoting diaries from officeholders and candidates – promoted by GMD)

Emerson Lynn wrote an wrote an editorial about Burton Snowboards "leaving" Vermont that highlights the misconceptions I hear from people around the state.  

Burton is not leaving. They are consolidating their manufacturing in Austria and China, a move that will cost us 43 jobs. Jon Margolis wrote an excellent analysis that is available at Vermont News Guy.  

Burton will keep their corporate headquarters and their research and development operations in Vermont. They are going to expand their research and development operations to take advantage of the research and development tax credits I have championed.

Doug Hoffer wrote a response to Mr. Lynn I want to share with you that makes it clear that Vermont policies are not the reason Burton made their decision.  

Sincerely,  

Susan

Doug’s letter is below the fold.    

Mr. Lynn  

If you consider your piece grounded in facts then I'm glad you're not a legislator.  

First, your singular focus on Vermont has blinded you to events in other states.  For example, from 1998 to 2007 (latest data available), there were 3,171 VT jobs lost to offshoring (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Trade Adjustment Assistance).  During that same period, New Hampshire – that wonderful tax-free haven – lost 8,309 jobs to offshoring.

Figures for other New England states:

CT -11,861

ME -13,481

MA -30,027

so I guess it's not just Vermont, eh?

Second, you said "utility costs matter."

All costs matter, but some costs are more equal than others. According to the 2008 Annual Survey of Manufactures (Census), electricity represents 1.7% of revenues for wood product manufacturers.

Thus, if we could wave a wand and reduce that cost by 20%, the savings would be the equivalent of one third of one percent of revenues.    

However, that's not an issue for Burton because electricity is actually more expensive in Austria than it is in the U.S. (U.S. Dept. of Energy, EIA).  

Third, you said "tax policies matter."  Of course they do.  But here again, you've made an assumption not supported by any facts.  

For some businesses, federal taxes matter, but state business taxes are quite modest. Of course, we don't know what Burton pays (convenient for you I suppose), but we do know that state corporate income taxes have declined significantly as a percentage of GSP in every state in America (see ITEP, http://www.ctj.org/pdf/corp020…  

BTW – For the person who posted the statutory top marginal rates for the U.S. and Austria: It is NOT the statutory rates that matter; it's the effective rates.

This is exactly why the governor's endless screed about Vermont income taxes is so lame.  We have a high top rate (now 8.95%) but the effective rate for those earning over $500,000 is 5.3%.  That's also one of the reasons the business climate rankings game is so misleading; they rely on the marginal rates instead of the effective rates.  

Fourth, you complained about the Legislature considering paid sick days.  I guess you didn't know that Austria has had that for years, along with five weeks of vacation.  

Fifth, you said that the "Lack of health care competition matters."  I assume you're joking. Austria has a tax-based national health system and they spend half what we do overall.  

Indeed, that may be important because Burton (presumably providing good benefits) can undoubtedly save money in Austria by NOT having to pay directly for America's bloated health insurance.  Austrian firms pay more than twice U.S. payroll taxes but it's certainly less than the combined cost of U.S. payroll taxes and insurance premiums.  

Sixth, did you know that from 1998 to 2008, Vermont's inflation adjusted per capita GDP grew 29% compared to New Hampshire's 17%? (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis) How could that be if New Hampshire is so much better than Vermont?  

Seventh, in the last five years, NH has lost 20% of its manufacturing jobs (16,300);  During that same period, Vermont lost 7,100 manufacturing jobs (19%).(VT & NH LMI/CES) How can that be if Vermont is so bad?  

And so on.  Are there problems?  Yes.  Are they unique to Vermont?  No.  So why must you persist with this tired line about Vermont being anti-business?  It really doesn't help solve problems.

Doug Hoffer

(Continuing the policy of promoting diaries from officeholders and officeseekers – promoted by odum)

It’s only the second week and already there are no shortages of topics of intense debate. I want to talk about VEGI incentives and the request to the Emergency Board to raise the cap on these incentives. If VEGI, the Emergency Board and raising the cap mean nothing to you, I would say you are with at least 95% of the rest of Vermont, but it is an important issue and it does have advocates and naysayers.

VEGI stands for Vermont Employment Growth Incentive and is a program that was started several years ago to encourage job growth in Vermont through cash incentives to employers.  The Emergency Board is the group that officially accepts the revenue projections, sets the levels of bonding and can approve emergency spending.  The Board is made up of the governor, the chairs of the two appropriations committees and the chairs of the tax committees.

Each of the incentive programs that we have in Vermont has a “cap”. That is the dollar amount that the program may spend or commit. VEGI had a cap of $10 million and they have asked to have the cap raised to $25 million.

More after the jump

Here’s how the VEGI program works. A business comes to the group in charge of these incentives and files an application for a VEGI credit. The business has to fill out a lengthy application and has to swear that the job growth would not happen without this incentive. There is a complex formula that determines if this would be a good investment of state dollars.  

These are performance based incentives. In other words, until the company has created the jobs, the jobs have been filled and folks have been working for a specific time period, the incentive is not paid.

If the company never creates the jobs, or only creates some of the jobs, the incentive is adjusted accordingly. These incentives are also paid out over a period of years. The idea is that these new jobs create more revenues for the state, so these incentives don’t “cost” the state money, they just share some of the new revenues with the company that creates these new revenues.

The VEGI program currently has the authority to commit up to $10 million in incentives and has most of that money committed. They have so far only paid out under $1 million, but the potential liability is still there for the other $9 million.

Three companies have suddenly come forward with very good applications and are looking at the creation of over 800 jobs in a several year period.

One company is a large Vermont company who is looking for a major expansion and another is a company that to be built in Vermont and would manufacture solar panels. The cap on the VEGI programs needs to be raised to cover these potential new, high paying jobs.

It is important to understand that these caps are the state’s liability and never have we come close to actually paying out the full amount of the caps. The business community feels that these types of incentives are very important to job creation. Many others feel that most of the jobs grown in Vermont happen without these incentives and that there is no proof that these incentives are helpful.

I’m happy to encourage 800 good paying jobs with VEGI, what a great thing to be talking about! 800 good jobs!

Thanks for reading,

Susan

PS: I’m happy to hear from you about the issues we face in Vermont and read your posts here. If you want to contact me, I’m easy to find through www.bartlettforgovernor.com

(Continuing the policy of promoting diaries from officeholders and officeseekers. – promoted by kestrel9000)

Wow did the first week begin at full speed!  The long list of issues that are asking for attention and the complexity of these issues are certainly going to make for a very interesting and intense session.

I want to talk about the Challenges for Change, the program that the Speaker, Pro tem and Governor all stood together and said this is good and we need to do it.  At the end of last session, we all knew that Vermont and the country were in a serious recession and that it would be a long time before we all recover.  We also knew that it was time to take a serious look at how we deliver state services and find ways to do it better with less.  

More after the jump

In the face of significant state layoffs and the continued dropping of revenues, we put aside $100,000 to ask for proposals from professional groups that have worked with governments of all sizes to help us reach the goal of permanent savings through restructuring.  Our target was $34 million in 2011, with more in the next year.

A company called Public Strategies was awarded the contract.  They have over 20 years of experience and they have previously done work in Vermont.  The result of their work with the oversight committee is Challenges for Change.  This document is available on the legislative web page and I highly recommend you check it out.

The way to change how government services are delivered is not by having some high paid folks from “away” come in and give you ideas.  It is best achieved by having the executive and legislative branches working together to achieve common goals.  What Public Strategies has done is facilitate these communications.  The outcome is a series of “challenges”.   Let me give you an example.  

A challenge is to get better outcomes from contractors and grantees at a 3.5% lower cost in FY11 and 10% less cost to the state in FY12.   The state of Vermont has a total of $200 million in contracts every year.  Most of these contracts and grants pay for hours or other units of effort, not for results.  It’s time to make a change to performance-based contracts.  In other states, these changes have led not only to significant dollar savings, but better services.

This effort is all about looking at government services in a different way.  It’s about setting the outcomes that we want, allocating the money and evaluating the results.  Now I know that sounds simple, but mostly government doesn’t work that way.  This type of reform can lead to a much more transparent form of budgeting.  It will allow the folks who are working in an area to know exactly what the outcomes are that are expected of their programs.  They know they will be measured on the outcomes.  We all will know what is working and what isn’t working.

I find this entire idea really exciting and am looking forward to working with folks over the session to further develop the idea of developing more challenges for each agency.

The best way to reach me is to give me a call at home and leave a message 888-5591, or through my website, www.bartlettforgovernor.com

(Promoting, with a reminder to candidates that GMD will front page messages such as this to the community. – promoted by odum)

Hello GMD Readers,

Sincerely,

Susan

As I travel the state and talk with Vermonters, I’m not surprised when I’m asked about the budget and what is the next year or two going to be like. Like every state, Vermont is struggling to maintain the services all Vermonters expect, as well as for Vermonters in need, in a time of global financial problems.

Here, in very simple terms and numbers, is what the state is facing for the next two years. It is important to remember that many states are in far worse shape than Vermont, but that doesn’t make the reduction in services any easier for Vermonters. More after the jump

The part of the state budget that we pay most attention to is the General Fund. That is the part of the budget that pays for most of the services that we associate with government: law enforcement, human services, corrections, health care, the judiciary, keeping the environment clean, economic development, labor and industry, permits of most kinds, state parks, higher education all those types of services. It does not include the education fund or transportation.

The General Fund in this past year was $1.2 billion dollars. It’s important to remember that many of those General Fund dollars can be matched with federal dollars, so that $1.2 billion represents a great deal more in spending ability.

The next budget, which we call the 2011 budget, is a fiscal year that begins on July 1, 2010. We need to reduce our General Fund spending by $85 million.

The following year, 2012, we need to further reduce our General Fund spending on that lower base number by $75 million. Once we have achieved that, we project we will have our spending of General Fund dollars in line with our projected revenues.

That means that our revenues will be at the same level for 2013 as they were in 2006, and our spending must be at that same level, too.

If you think about your family budget, let’s say you earned $35,000 this year. Next year you can expect to earn $32,515. The year after that, you expect just $30,336. With the cost of everything going up, how would that affect your spending choices? Now you begin to see the problem that confronts our state.

We have already reduced spending by more than $200 million dollars in the past two sessions. That hasn’t been easy. We have avoided truly terrible reductions because of the federal stimulus money. Both the administration and the legislature used that federal money to balance this year’s budget, and we will continue to use it to help balance the next year’s budget.

Then the federal dollars are gone and the states will need to have their spending in line with their revenues.

Going back to the family budget, this would mean that next year you would get help from your Great-Aunt Pearl to make up the difference in your loss of income. The year after that, you’ll get nothing.

In addition to these budgetary issues for the General Fund, there is wide spread concern about the amount of money we spend on K-12 education. As the number of students on a statewide level shrinks, we spend more and more on education per student. We pay for education with property taxes, a source of constant conversation and concern.

The state doesn’t have any additional money to contribute to the education fund. The changes we need to make to insure a high quality, affordable education for all students is another conversation, for another time.