|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Today’s episode of The Vermont Podcast:
Going live at 2:30 with columnist Rob Roper to discuss The Vermont Legislature’s Progress on Education Reform and what the Governor thoughts on Legislature’s current plan costing ‘too much.’
We will also discuss:
-DHS citing Vermont as a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction’
-Vermont’s potential new health commissioner
-Clean Heat Standard is now ‘Dead’ ?
And more!
Tune in live right here on Facebook at 2:30!
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: The Vermont Podcast
The 2026 election has the potential to be a tremendous success for Vermont Republican candidates. The state of the State under progressive Democrat leadership has resulted in a complete disaster for the citizens and voters of this state. It appears the reality check has arrived. Thank you VDC and Rob Roper for keeping the light shining on the pressing concerns.
I just watched this Creeme Cast on YouTube… ‘the morning after the night before’. Be it runaway education spending, healthcare spending, energy regulation and Vermont’s dysfunctional legislative process, our spiral into unsustainable taxation is inevitable – UNLESS – someone can articulate a solution… a real solution that describes the tangible next steps to take.
Sure… tell the candidates, lower taxes or else. But how do we propose ‘they’ do that? Apparently, judging by the Creeme Cast discussion on Friday, neither Guy, Paul nor Rob can make a constructive recommendation…. other than to tell the legislature to stop what they’re doing and repeal various directives.
After all, the damage is done. Property taxes are already the highest in the country. Repealing legislation and stopping the legislature in their tracks won’t suffice. Bankruptcy is here. Now what?
And while I’ve discussed this with several of our State legislators recently, they don’t have a tangible solution to offer either – other than to say they will do whatever they can to ‘just lower taxes’. Promises, promises.
Okay. We get it. But HOW do they intend to lower taxes? I want to hear our candidates explain…. Step one. Step two. Step three. Step……..
And yes folks…. that’s a challenge.
Actually I have proposed a number of solutions. Step 1: Institute a Taxpayers Bill of Rights law modeled after the one adopted by Colorado in the 1990s. It caps state spending growth at inflation plus population growth with all excess revenue raised above that amount returned to the taxpayers. As for education/property taxes specifically, my suggestion was that the legislature 1) Freeze Vermonters property tax bills and make the general fund be the revenue stream of last resort until a long term funding solution can be agreed upon, 2) spend this session looking at the ways 47 other states limit/cap individual property tax bills and pick the one(s) that work best for us. Long term, 3) Set a foundation formula that puts us on a path to pre covid education spending levels that are more in line with other states per pupil spending. 4) Cut the supervisory union level of bureaucracy significantly. 5) Give local school districts greater local control over how money is spent, and, if they can’t make it work give them the opportunity to close their local school and become a tuitioning district. 5) Make it easier for public schools to transform into independent schools. 6) Allow public funding to flow to non-traditional, less costly methods of educating children, such as home schooling, learning pods, etc.
Thank you. Rob, for making some recommendations. I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge your willingness to engage, at least to a point, my occasional ‘challenges’. At the very least, you are one of a handful of VDC readers willing to do so. And I hope we can expand on this discussion further. So, in that regard, please carefully consider the following.
Re: “Step 1: Institute a Taxpayers Bill of Rights…”
We already have a great Constitution, both Federal and State. The problem rests with those who are elected to manage our affairs. As Ben Franklin opined, “ … this Constitution, with all its Faults,… can only end in Despotism… when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”
If there is a Step 1, it is to convince Vermont’s voters that virtually everything they’ve approved over the last several years has been detrimental to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We, the voters, are to blame for Vermont’s current malaise. Unless and until we come to this realization, nothing will change. In fact, our predicament will only worsen.
Re: “1a) Freeze Vermonters property tax bills… cap state spending growth at inflation plus population growth with all excess revenue raised above that amount returned to the taxpayers.”
With all due respect, the devil is in the details. And the details of your proposals are missing. Your logic doesn’t make mathematical sense. Think about it.
First of all, ‘Limits become Extents’. If spending increases are capped by a specific amount, spending will always increase by that amount. Always!
Every year, people tell us they’re proposing to ‘cut’ spending. When, in fact, they’re simply proposing to decrease the rate of spending increases. That’s why our education budgets keep increasing – even while student populations have declined by 20% over the last decade or so. It’s semantic nonsense. Worse…. it’s fraudulent logic.
As I mentioned above, we’ve already experienced massive ‘spending growth’. Vermont’s pre-pandemic 2019 budget was $5.8 Billion. In May, Gov. Scott signed a $9.1 Billion budget for FY2026. That’s a 56% increase.
In other words, we’re now spending 56% more money every year than we did 6 years ago. Every year! If spending doesn’t increase, that’s 56% more spending every year – not an average increase over 6 years.
And that doesn’t include considerations for various underfunded healthcare, education and government defined benefit retirement programs projected to cost taxpayers Billions in additional taxpayer liabilities.
Consider this: If the 2019 budget increased every year by the rate of inflation, let’s say 3% per year, the 2026 budget would be $7.1 Billion – that’s $2.1 Billion LESS, EACH YEAR, than the amount you propose with a cap.
We shouldn’t be ‘capping’ spending growth. We should incrementally decrease spending until we reach $7.1 Billion annually. Then we can consider capping the growth by the rate of inflation. But again, building ‘growth’ into the algorithm only ensures that growth will occur. Why can’t we ‘cut’ spending every year instead?
Re: 1b) “… make the general fund be the revenue stream of last resort until a long term funding solution can be agreed upon.”
It matters little where the revenue stream comes from. The revenue is too high. Period! It shouldn’t be frozen. It should be cut. Period!
Re: “2) … looking at the ways 47 other states limit/cap individual property tax bills and pick the one(s) that work best for us.”
Fine. Other States, almost all of them, have more control over their spending than Vermont. But other States aren’t Vermont. Most States have several cities with larger populations than the entire State of Vermont.
Look at NH. It has three times Vermont’s population and spends only one and a half times as much money. New Hampshire will spend $15.4 Billion on 1.14 Million people. That’s $13,508 per person. Vermont is spending $14,218 per person.
Meanwhile, Florida has 23.8 Million people and spends $115.6 Billion. That’s $4,857 per person. And Florida’s annual budget actually decreased this year.
Okay. Do as Florida does.
Re: “ 3) Set a foundation formula that puts us on a path to pre covid education spending levels that are more in line with other states per pupil spending.”
See my first point. We can’t attain pre-Covid spending levels by capping the rate of increase on an already massively inflated budget. Again: “We shouldn’t be ‘capping’ spending growth. We should incrementally decrease spending until we reach $7.1 Billion annually. Then we can cap the growth by the rate of inflation.”
Re: “4) Cut the supervisory union level of bureaucracy significantly.”
Why not eliminate the supervisory union bureaucracy?
Re: “5) Give local school districts greater local control over how money is spent, and, if they can’t make it work give them the opportunity to close their local school and become a tuitioning district.”
Bingo! At least with regard to education. But school districts already have the authority to close their local schools. Again, the devil is in the details. And I would love to have this discussion with anyone truly interested in saving taxpayer dollars AND improving student outcomes. Let me know if you’re up for that discussion.
Re: “5a) Make it easier for public schools to transform into independent schools.”
This is a redundant point. Again, school districts already have the authority to close their public schools. And several, having done so, have restructured those same schools, the same school buildings and the same school staff, into approved independent schools. Just look at North Bennington.
“The North Bennington Graded School District provides school choice for grades Pre-K through 6th by budgeting for and paying the tuition cost for North Bennington and Shaftsbury District 1 (SD 1) students to attend approved elementary schools. District One includes Paran Acres, Harvest Hills and neighboring areas.”
North Bennington closed its public K-6 school and transformed it into “The Village School of North Bennington, an independent school which provides a full range of support services and special education services for in-district K-6 students who are determined to be eligible for these services.”
Re: “6) Allow public funding to flow to non-traditional, less costly methods of educating children, such as home schooling, learning pods, etc.”
Again, this recommendation is redundant. Vermont’s ‘tuitioning’ governance already allows funding to flow to non-traditional, less costly education programs. The only thing it doesn’t do is subsidize ‘homeschooling’. And most homeschool advocates don’t want to have anything to do with State funding, because they believe it comes with too many strings attached. Nonetheless, I believe Vermont’s ‘tuitioning’ governance does provide assistance to homeschool parents indirectly. And I’d love to have this detailed discussion with you too.
In closing, for now, remember: We, the voters, are to blame for Vermont’s current malaise. If we continue to elect despots, we will get despotism. Unless and until we come to this realization, nothing will change. In fact, our predicament will only worsen. Perhaps Guy and Paul would be interested in doing a series of Creemee Cast shows on these specific points.