|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Here’s a few ideas…
by Rob Roper
Vermont voters screamed that affordability is the number one issue we want the legislature to address in 2025. While lawmakers have little control over the what we pay for eggs and hamburger, what they do have control over – total control over at the state level — is what we pay in taxes, fees, and regulatory costs. These are the costs they can – and must — cut.
Since 2019, the year before Covid, the state budget has grown from about $5.8 billion to $8.5 billion. That’s a $2.7 billion – or a nearly 50 percent!! – spending increase in just four years. That’s insane. So, don’t trot out the line that there’s no room to cut or, as House Ways and Means Committee chair, Emilee Kornheiser (D-Brattleboro) ludicrously declared, “Everything in the General Fund is underfunded.” Bull…oney.
No politician likes to cut spending, but here are just a few ideas for what should be easy places to start….
Repeal Act 18, the Clean Heat Standard. While politicians on both sides of the aisle are at least paying lip service to the obvious facts that program is unaffordable, logistically unworkable and politically toxic, a mere vote (or “pocket veto” of no vote) to not move forward with PUC rules implementing the program would still leave in place in perpetuity the bureaucracy Act 18 created to set up administer this program. With no program we do not need this bureaucracy, which costs taxpayers about $1.7 million. Cut it by repealing Act 18 entirely.
Eliminate the Office of Racial Equity. Not just because DEI has been largely debunked as a concept, leading to more racial friction than harmony among its many other problems (although that should be reason enough), but primarily because Vermont’s Office of Racial Equity doesn’t do anything. I mean ANYTHING. Last summer I wrote a piece titled Whither Goes the Office of Racial Equity exploring the fact that its director, Xusana Davis, has been MIA since 2023. The Office hasn’t posted any meetings, issued any press releases since then. This is still the case today. Yet Vermont taxpayers are forking over more than a half a million dollars a year in salaries each year to prop up this at best worthless and at worst harmful department. Get rid of it.
Eliminate the Vermont Climate Council. It’s now redundant and has always been a joke. Created under the Global Warming Solutions Act, this twenty-three-member, unelected body was supposed to come up with a plan for meeting the greenhouse gas reduction mandates of that law, and then adjust it as time goes by. They never really did this. Their original “plan” was nothing more than a spaghetti splatter on the wall of hundreds of policy suggestions with no priorities set, no cost estimates provided, no implementation schedule recommended…. In other words, not a plan.
But, while all of this mental masturbatory activity has produced exactly nothing of value, Vermont taxpayers are paying millions in per-diem payments to the “volunteer” council and subcommittee members and for ancillary services such as meeting facilitators and expert consultants. Moreover, as we just passed the January 1, 2025, first GWSA target date, and after four years of “planning” not a single one of those hundreds of spaghetti strand recommendations to the legislature has been put into law. This reality, coupled with the major election losses Democrats suffered last November, illustrates there is no political or public appetite for this absurd climate change agenda. Ergo, we do not need a Climate Council spitting out non-plans no politician intends to ever execute.
There is also the fact that we now have seven full-time employees of the state administering the Climate Action Office doing essentially the same thing. I would argue we don’t need either of these entities, but we certainly don’t need both. So, while lawmakers are in there making adjustments to the Global Warming Solutions Act (you said you were gonna!), take a minute to erase the Climate Council.
Stop Subsidizing Planned Parenthood. Whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion rights, there is no reason for Vermont taxpayers who are struggling to make ends meet to be handing over money to a private organization that, according to its 2022-23 annual report, has nearly $2.1 billion in income and over $2.5 billion in net assets. Every other state in New England has gotten wise to this wealthfare con game and stopped tapping their taxpayers’ wallets to fill Planned Parenthood’s tip jar. Vermont is the only sucker left on this deal team, and so PP is asking us to not only continue giving them our money, but more of our money to make up for the sound financial decisions of all of our neighbors. Um, no. Planned Parenthood is perfectly capable of raising a few million dollars to toss on top of its other $2.5 billion pile from private fundraising. Let them do that and leave VT taxpayers alone.
Stop Subsidizing Private Electric Vehicle Purchases. If folks want to buy an electric vehicle, good for them. Have at it. Pursue happiness as you see fit. But don’t ask the state to put a gun to your neighbors’ heads and force us to help pay for your swanky new ride. It’s not the role of government to do this under any circumstances, let alone when the state and its citizens are in dire financial straits. Beyond that it’s cruelly regressive. How do you justify forcing a single mother driving a used 2013 minivan to get her kids to school and herself to work to subsidize a lawyer’s or a financial advisor’s decision to get a new Prius. You can’t. So, stop.
End the Mandatory Universal School Meals Program. You should have done this last year to help bring down property taxes, but you didn’t. $25 to $30 million per year is a significant chunk of change. It was a Covid emergency program. The emergency has passed. End the program. Low-income students are still served by the free and reduced lunch program; all this did was force the taxpayers to cover the cost of the rich kids’ meals. This is not a justifiable expenditure under our current financial circumstances. Admit you made a financial mistake in shifting the cost of a temporary federal program permanently onto the shoulders of state taxpayers and repeal the mandate.
I’m sure there are lots more ideas out there along these lines, and we’ll need them! Departments that aren’t doing what they are supposed to, or anything at all; private non-profits receiving grants or subsidies that should be privately funded, not at taxpayer expense; programs that might in other more flush times be considered but not now that we’re stretched beyond our means that can be done away with given a little careful analysis. Share your ideas in the comments below!
Our little state simply cannot afford the $8.5 billion in spending that was voted for last year. That’s the reality this legislature was elected to solve. Your New Year’s resolution needs to be a state fiscal diet and exercise. Unfortunately there’s no such thing as budgetary Ozempic. You’ve got to do the work.
Author is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics including three years service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free market think tank.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Legislation, State Government, Taxes
I was listening to “Crime Junkie” on I heart: Vermont is now paying to advertise lgbq spots on podcasts. Considering the state of the criminal justice system in VT, I found that quite ironic
I am surprised smart guys like you don’t lead with welfare reform. With so many help wanted signs out there, you would think I light bulb would go off that no strings attached welfare for life is terrible public policy
Your point is well taken, Pete. But, in Rob’s defense, there is so much wrong with our legislative mismanagement it would be better to ask what the legislature does that is reasonable. That list would be short indeed. Everything else should be ‘eliminated’.
Yes, that would be good to do, but I was looking for ideas to cut — eliminate — programs or line items, not reform. Welfare reform could save money, yes, but I don’t think there’s much political appetite to eliminate it. And, this is why I asked for folks to expand the list in the comments! 😉
Thanks for the reply, Jay and Rob.
It hasn’t been announced yet but a large manufacturer in Southern Vermont is in the process of closing their doors because they could not maintain a workforce despite very good pay and benefits. This will cost the state a good chunk of change that is wholly preventable if the was a fair work requirement for people who are cable of working but choose not to
Rob, Pete, et al.: We should cut everything except our military, judiciary and law enforcement – and start over.
If it were up to me, I’d first eliminate the Agency of Education and provide school choice vouchers in the context of Vermont’s existing ‘tuitioning’ governance, as addressed in the H.405 School Choice bill languishing in the House Education committee.
This single adjustment would change everything. Taxes would decrease. Student outcomes would improve, thereby improving Vermont’s workforce. Special Education labeling would decline. A diversified curricula would be available carte blanche. People would choose to come to Vermont for the freedom of choice. Housing construction would expand because of increased demand and lower property taxes. Political in-fighting and indoctrination would be a thing of the past. And people would learn to be personally responsible for their own choices, instead of being lead around by the nose and blaming others for their failures.
“Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government– in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the costs come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.” ― Milton Friedman
I’ll believe it when it’s real. They have no track record to prove they can do it. What’s new, though, is Scotts veto can be sustained.
All the legislators and senators should repeat over and over to themselves: this is not my money, it is being extracted by threat of force from my constituents via taxes.
Stop housing the homeless. Does this sound cruel? Yes, it does but if these people are getting a free home at taxpayer expense, what incentive do they have to rectify their homelessness? They don’t. If someone doesn’t contribute to the tax base, they should NOT benefit from it.
The government should stop housing the homeless. Does that mean the homeless will be left out in the cold? No. Individuals in a free-market economy have a far better track record of taking care of their own – for more reasons than I can possibly list here. And the proof is in the pudding. The more our government assumes this responsibility, the worse the problem becomes.
Why, you ask? Because when people in government are paid to take care of the homeless, without any supply and demand checks and balances, they are incentivized to expand their services in order to make more money. They are actually disincentivized to help people who are otherwise temporarily disadvantaged. If government workers were ever successful in actually teaching a man to fish, as opposed to giving a man a fish, they’d be out of work.
Tax cuts, I believe it when I see it in my wallet, I’m not holding my breath. Montpelier is infested with spending junkies !!
Time will tell.
One more thing to stop is the free food card that feeds our over weight house and senate members. They need to show by setting a example.
How about stop subsidizing Front Porch Forum, since they don’t let some people have a voice if their politics don’t line up with theirs?
On that note – I’ll add how about somehow incentivizing the bigger media sources to do as they did when I was young and have investigative reporting, include open comments sections like this. This could be a turning point in helping Vermonters understand the need to know, instead of hiding from political content.
Thank you Guy for setting the bar. I hope other media sources of the state might take note and become your copy cat.
Department of Government Efficiency perhaps? We have a State Auditor, yet anytime an issue is found, the offending department responds with a lame excuse and there is no penalty and no consequence. We pay for an auditor and staff – for what and why?
There is a lot of waste, misappropriations, and willful malfeasance. How many commissions, boards and task forces? How many receive stipends and expenses and are not elected or approved by taxpayers? Childcare payroll taxes? The first year was subsidized by a “donor,” the rest subsidized and likely to increase the burden onto taxpayers. A small State such as Vermont spending over $8 Billion a year is weaponized lawfare thievery. Case in point, our infrastructure is failing and homelessness increases expedientially. Problems only increase the more money they throw at it – gee I wonder why? No honor or accountibility among thieves.
The VTGOP is squandering time. They have one year to demonstrate that have successfully cut taxes. Blocking legislation, forming new committees and etc. isn’t going to cut it. No one is going to care about we stopped bills that may or may not have increased taxes.
They, VTGOP elected representatives, if needed, should pool their money together to find expert help to identify cost cutting opportunities, recommend cuts, validate the cuts take place, validate the savings, and report back to the taxpayers.
Talk time is over.
If not, they will find themselves in the Super Minority and an even longer time.