|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Voters want tax relief, but Dem plan spends MORE.
When Governor Scott unveiled his education reform plan, I warned readers to be prepared to “kiss your sister.” There’s a lot to not like in what he came up with, but at least it reduced spending by $180 million in order to cut taxes. The plan the Democrats are putting forward, however, is more like getting violated by Uncle Ernie. It’s awful. A complete betrayal of the message voters sent last November.
The big knife in the back was revealed by Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (D-Brattleboro), chair of the House Ways & Means Committee, during a caucus of the whole when she admitted that the bill her committee passed out on a party line vote would “result in spending approximate to what we’re spending now. Slightly more.” Spending more, of course, requires more taxes, not less. This was not the mission!
I am reminded of a classic Far Side cartoon where a couple returning home from a date night confronts the witch in their living room with, “Now let me get this straight… We hired you to babysit the kids, and instead you cooked and ate them both?” Yeah, of course the witch ate the kids, that’s what witches do. And when you put an avowed Marxist, who is on the record stating that “everything” — every state program — is underfunded and “no taxes is not an option” in charge with the expectation that she would faithfully do the job the voters hired her to do and cut education spending and reduce taxes… let’s just say that was not well founded. This witch – indeed the whole coven — was always going to cook and eat the kids.
At a press conference announcing this plan, Speaker of the House, Jill Krowinski (D-Burlington) unintentionally revealed the root problem driving the affordability crisis in Vermont when she introduced the people standing behind her who were responsible for writing this tax and spend more monstrosity. “The Vermont Principals’ Association, the Vermont School Board Association, the Vermont Superintendents’ Association, and the Vermont Association of School Business Officials, also educators, teachers, and legislators.” All special interest groups ready to cash in, and those endorsed by said special interest groups.
Who was not represented in this curtain call? Taxpayers.
So, when Krowinski summed up her argument by saying, “For those deciding whether to support this effort, look who is standing here,” I say, hell yeah! Do exactly that. Look at who is standing there and look who is not. Look at who they listened to and who they did not. Do that and it’s no surprise why your taxes will continue to rise.
We have an affordability crisis in Vermont because on just about every critical issue – environmental policy, energy policy, healthcare policy, and especially education policy – tax eating special interests own the majority party and are writing legislation to line their own pockets.
As such, under this proposed “reform” property tax relief is never and never was a consideration. The best lip service Democrats are willing to give is that they hope to “bend the cost curve” sometime in the future. What this means is that as far as they are concerned the 14 percent property tax increase we experienced last year is now permanently baked into Marie Antoinette’s cake, which they are telling us to eat. So, too will be the six percent spending increase this year. And next year and the year after that?
In addition to committing to spend even more than what is already the second highest per pupil spending rate in the country, the proposed “cost bending” mechanism (a foundation formula system that sends a school a set amount per pupil rather than allowing school districts to set their own budgets) is can-kicked down the road until the 2029-2030 school year. In the meantime we’re stuck with this unsustainable status quo. Well, unsustainable for us taxpayers, but quite lucrative for those standing behind Speaker Krowinski. Don’t forget to look!
A phrase Rep. Kornheiser used repeatedly during the Democrats’ press conference was that “we do not want scarcity driving policy.” That’s a fancy way of saying we don’t care about taxpayers’ ability to pay for these programs. We don’t care what they cost. We’re paying off the people standing behind us, and handing you the bill. And that’s that.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Education, State Government
aaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhh I can’t believe they ate the kids. This is sooooo stupid!
Dennis Morrisseau
The tormenting of the Vermont tax payer will never end as lone as the cave monkeys can keep playing with your minds. You will put an end to this dog and pony show when you can show property appraisals and bonding are a complete fraud and shut down their funding.
Read up on the Milgram Experiments and the Stanford Prison Experiments to understand the motivation of our political elites… on both sides of the aisle.
“I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.” ― Henry David Thoreau
The power of controlled markets that are monopolies, ahh the stench of Marxism wafting through our state house, spreading the love of tax payer money across our green mountains, gutting the middle class.
Your tax bill increasing $600 when you gave yourself a $3;000 raise isn’t so bad. Why doth thee complain. And the tax bill doesn’t come to those whom get the rebate, why doth thee complain?
The magic sauce is about to run out. Insanity is about to hit day light, it could be a bit ugly.
A definition attributed to Albert Einstein: “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”
Vermont has the 2nd highest spending per pupil (in SB in FY26: $29,258 pp) of all 50 states, spending twice as much per pupil as 16 other states…
…yet rankings on 2024 NAEP standardized testing (Nation’s report card) in 4th grade math, 8th grade math, 4th grade reading, and 8th grade reading were:
34, 18, 32, and 24
Utah which spends 170% LESS ($10,000 pp) than Vermont per pupil had the following rankings on the same tests:
4, 3, 7, and 8
Since 2013-2015 spending on Vermont public school student education is INVERSELY proportional to proficiency attainment in math and reading… meaning the more Vermont has spent on educating its students the worse the learning outcomes.
And the Democrats response?: spend more
Tragic does NOT convey sufficiently the current reality of learning and spending in Vermont’s public schools and, without a doubt, Democrats own a great deal of the blame…. make no mistake about that.
How does one spend 170% less than any amount, considering that spending 100% less would reduce the amount to zero? Sounds like the new math.
No matter how one sees the math – Utah’s annual $10 thousand per student education spending is $19 thousand per student less than Vermont’s annual per pupil spending. Meanwhile, Utah kids score, on average, in the top 11% of all States, while Vermont kids score, on average, in the bottom 50% of all States.
The point Mr. Silverstein is making (in case anyone was distracted) is to show which State, Utah or Vermont, gets the best bang for its education spending. The point those who criticize Mr. Silverstein’s calculations are making is to obfuscate from the blatantly obvious mismanagement of Vermont’s government and special interest controlled public education cartels.
And in case anyone is wondering, this trend of spending more and getting less has been ongoing in Vermont’s public-school monopoly for the last 20 years or more.
One could say Vermont (in 2024) spent 170% MORE ($27,000pp) than Utah (10,000 pp).
My statement of Utah spending 170% less than Vermont is based upon:
New value-original value/ original value x 100%
27,000 (Vt)-10,000 (Utah)/10,000 x 100% = 1.7 x 100% = 170%.
Whether Mr. Blommer accepts my calculation—or not—the fact remains Vermont spends a great deal more pp than Utah per student…. and yet proficiency scores in reading and math for Vermont students are significantly inferior, based upon NAEP rankings, compared to Utah.
More relevant would be Vermont public school student performance on in-state VTCAP standardized tests (2024):
% of Vermont students scoring ****BELOW**** Proficient (SB = South Burlington)
Science Grade 11: SB: 46% Below (statewide Below: 53%)
Science Grade 8: 41% (statewide: 58%)
Science Grade 5: 42% (statewide: 57%)
Math Grade 9: SB: 48% (statewide: 60%)
Math Grade 8: 50% (statewide: 65%)
Math Grade 7: 26% (statewide: 56%)
Math Grade 6: 30% (statewide: 53%)
Math Grade 5: 37% (statewide: 63%)
Math Grade 4: 56% (statewide: 69%)
Math Grade 3: 41% (statewide: 64%)
ELA: English Language Arts
Grade 9: SB: 45% (statewide: 52%)
Grade 8: 27% (statewide: 42%)
Grade 7: 18% (statewide: 42%)
Grade 6: 25% (statewide: 44%)
Grade 5: 34% (statewide: 50%)
Grade 4: 36% (statewide: 45%)
Grade 3: 37% (statewide: 51%)
Mr. Roper is right…again. We’ve created a predatory schooling business run by&for a cabol who continue to engorge themselves at the trough we’ve provided them. Do we reach a point where we admit this was a civic failure and return the collected funds to the learners and their families? Learners will shape the schooling services market to their needs. Neighbors…we need to retake our liberties. Vote only for folks who actively seek your consensus before voting for ANYTHING.
The new appraisal on my building in Bloomfield will allow me to go to the bank and borrow more money with my new found wealth thanks to the governments magic numbers. Sounds like what the auto dealers did during the SCAM DEMIC with magic numbers on car values.
In my defense, I had no intent to “obfuscate”, but only to engage in sardonic humor that seems to have gone over the heads of some. There’s a certain irony in decrying students’ lack of math skills while incorporating a fundamental error. In any event, there have been various proposals to reduce the cost of education, but few on improving its quality. Expecting those who have created the problem to fix it is unrealistic. In that regard I’m 100% (if I might be allowed to use the term) behind Mr. Eshelman’s oft-stated proposal for unlimited school vouchers. Let the parents pick a school that works for their kids.
I responded to your criticism: Utah spends $10,000 pp. $10K is $17,000 Less than what Vermont spends pp ($27K)…
Difference in spending (Vt-Utah) divided by what Utah spends:
$17,000/$10,000 x 100% = 1.7 x 100% = 170%.
If you disagree then accept the fact that Vermont spends $17,000 more per pupil than Utah = Vermont spends 170% more than Utah pp.
Now, if you had to pay ten thousand dollars for each child for education and not rely on the taxpayer funded system, would or could you pay it each year????