2010 Budget Letter 6.10.09

[Carolyn Branagan]

Ed was asking about getting a look at the wording of the budget. It is quite long, so I have not copied the whole thing here on Henry's site.  But here is the address:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2010/bills/Passed/H-441.pdf

Let me know if you have questions about specific provisions and I'll try to find the answers.  Also if you'd like to contact me feel free to e-mail me at cbranagan@leg.state.vt.us  . I am happy to get calls from constituents at my home, 527-7694.

Rep. Carolyn Branagan
Franklin-1, Fairfax/Georgia
Vermont House of Representatives

 

[special ED]

carol thanks for the link .can you tell me what global commitment fund is? also is there a way to get a closer look like line by line? thanks again ED

[Carolyn Branagan]

In the budget that was approved  by the House and Senate, starting on page 6 section 100, the line by line appropriation amounts are given. These appropriations go on for many pages because it covers all parts of state government. Keep in mind that  transportation expenses and capital expenses (mainly state building and property care/improvement) are covered in other bills. Spread sheets for each department or agency showing last year's expenditures compared to what is appropriated for FY2010 are available   but  have to be requested. I can get them for you if there is something specific in which you are interested. Listed in the bill itself is only proposed FY2010 appropriation.

Global Commitment is a new concept offered by the Douglas administration back in 2005 to change the way Vermont spends its Medicaid  money. Initial federal approval was needed to make the changes,  and approval was received after some minor hassle. As far as I know the Global Commitment structure has been very successful and has saved the state money. Medicaid serves some of Vermont's most vulnerable citizens. Here's a link to a power point presentation I saw when the program was first introduced. It  summarizes the basic concepts of Global Commitment.


file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/I9OFUPKD/Legislative%2520GC%2520Presentation%252010-2005%5B1%5D.ppt#256,1,Introduction to Global Commitment

Rep.  Carolyn Branagan

[Carolyn Branagan]

This might be an easier way to get to the Global Commitment power point:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/Healthcare.htm


When you get to this page, look at the botton left and click on 'Global Commitment Power Point Presentation'.

Call me if you have trouble, 527-7694.

from,  Carolyn

[Chris Santee]

Gary Gilbert's original post,
paragraph 2, line 1:

"Those who take the easy argument that we should tighten our belts and spend less are in error."


WCAX News today:
Montpelier, Vermont - July 13, 2009

Even though a new state budget just started this month, lawmakers are back in Montpelier looking to chop next year's budget.

"We know in tough times we have to find additional savings in the budget," said Rep. Shap Smith, D-Vt. House Speaker.

This special legislative committee is trying to find $30 million to cut from state government through reorganizing what the state does and using technology more. Big changes lawmakers say are needed as less tax money comes into the state and the recession drags on. Next year's budget already has a projected $67 million hole.

[Chris Santee]

My apologies, that's from the Burlington Free Press,
but the point remains:

Gary, my friend, I'm afraid we don't agree on anything but the New York Giants.
As a former student of economics at Champlain College, I could not possibly disagree with your thinking any more !
Now IS the time for government to "tighten our belts and spend less".
You even acknowledge that in your first paragraph:
 
"Both the Administration and the House Leadership came to recognize that reductions in state spending and increased revenues would be necessary to address the magnitude of our fiscal problem".
 
You then state why you voted to increase spending.
 
You go on to state:
"The legislative budget that I voted for reduces income-tax rates slightly for low and middle-income earners.....".
 
While this is the truth, the word "slightly' is key.
A person earning $65,000 receives an income tax reduction of $20. I repeat $20.
But when coupled with the gasoline tax you also voted for, it is not a cut, but just another way for us to pay more taxes.
 
Don't just take my word for it, check this story from WCAX:
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=10477324
which quotes Vermont's leading economist Art Woolf:
"Well the average taxpayers, they're going to pay more.
And in part that's due to the gasoline tax hike which hits them all,"
 
Even WCAX starts their story with:
The budget bills passed by the legislature this session will have immediate and longer-term consequences for taxpayers.
 
Yet here, Gary, you attempt to tell us:
"The legislative budget that I voted for reduces income-tax rates slightly for low and middle-income earners.....".
Hogwash !
That's like reducing a large pizza from $15 to $14, charging $2 for the box and telling us you have reduced prices.

I guess I'm a little mad today,
maybe because I also read 11% of Vermonters are delinquent in their property taxes.
With a population of 600,000, that means 66,000 owe back taxes.

If two taxpayers each have two kids, (the average),
that's 33,000 children in Vermont with parents more than struggling.
When ya mess with kids, I get mad.

Thanks to Carolyn for all the great information.

[special ED]

hey chris at least you didnt get called a" miserable soul"

[Chris Santee]

That shoe would have fit (for the moment).