Editor's note: Inside the Golden Bubble is an occasionalpolitical column about the Legislature by Anne Galloway. The amendment is a funny thing. It can be a vehicle for reallegislative change, but more often than not it serves a politicalpurpose. A prime example? The Vermont House GOP s decision last week topull an amendment to waive all permits for a new psychiatricfacility. The point Rep. Don Turner, R-Milton, et. al., were tryingto make was: Following the rules, that is seeking environmental andother regulatory permits, sure can be time consuming and expensive.Act 250 and certificate of need approvals would add months to theconstruction of the facility, according to Turner, even though thegovernor has asked for an expedited process. Not to mention thecost. Wouldn t it be more efficient if emergency rules, like thosethe Shumlin administration used during Tropical Storm Irene forstreambed mitigation, were applied in this, and other, instances,Turner wanted to know? The GOP minority leader knew the amendment didn t have a hope ofpassage. The usual process questions came up: He didn t consultwith the chair of the committee of jurisdiction; the proposal waslast minute; this was a matter of policy that needed dueconsideration, etc. So why go through this exercise in futility? Milton scoredpolitical points, got the proposal on the record and garnered theattention of reporters. (The amendment was journalized forposterity.) What more could he ask for? Sometimes ideas come up — Tom Pelham s tiger teaminitiatives were one such proposal — that are initiallyrejected by the party in power (Democrats) — but thenresurface in another form and are eventually adopted. A version ofPelham s clinical utilization review board concept, for example,is a project now under way at the Department of Vermont HealthAccess. A few weeks ago, the Democratic majority in the House adopted anidea, nearly whole cloth, from one of their GOP brethren. Rep. Oliver Olsen, R-Jamaica, has tirelessly gadflied an issue thateventually got stuck in the ointment of the budgeting and taxwriting process. Olsen was galled last year when lawmakers cutfunding for the General Fund transfer to the Ed Fund by $27.5million. The move was dubbed a rebasing of the transfer to 2008levels, before the Great Recession, before the federal stimulusfunds and before Gov. Peter Shumlin took power. Instead oftransferring $309 million from the General Fund to the Ed Fund infiscal year 2012, including inflationary increases, the transferwill be $282 million. The reduction is on average a roughly 3 centproperty tax increase at the local level. Olsen, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, proposed that thestate divert 50 percent of any surplus funds (after thestabilization fund has been filled) toward the General Fundtransfer to the Ed Fund, and more money into the per pupil fundingformula. The mechanism would remain in place until the transfer andthe formula have caught up with inflation. The Joint Fiscal Officewould be required to issue a report on the plan every year. Olsen has made filling the gap in the transfer his cause d etre.He s made fast friends across the aisle (Rep. Ann Manwaring,D-Wilmington), and he presumably got the ear of the House SpeakerShap Smith (his idea wouldn t have advanced otherwise). His amendment passed unanimously in the House several weeks ago,and perhaps more remarkably made a brief appearance in the otherbody (also known as the Senate). The Green Room killed the provision, which was tacked onto theBudget Adjustment Act, but it surfaced again, this time with dualbilling — Rep. Dave Sharpe, D-Bristol, is now named on theamendment, along with Olsen. It was unanimously supported in the House a second time onThursday, as an add-on to the standalone property tax bill, whichraised the statewide rate by 1 cent. The amendment passed 140-0. The fate of Rep. Cynthia Browning s more radical proposal —that the Legislature simply repeal the rebasing of the Ed Fundtransfer — split the body along partisan lines, with theexception of an handful of Democrats including Manwaring, and PegAndrews of Rutand, Michel Consejo of Sheldon, John Moran ofWardsboro, Larry Townsend of Randolph and Linda Waite-Simpson.Independent Paul Poirier of Barre City also supported theamendment. Browning, a Democrat, argued that the rebasing was a permanentchange in funding that would have long-term impacts on schools andresult in $300 million in reductions over a 10-year period. Shesaid the cut in funding for schools was too blunt aninstrument. I don t think reducing the Education Fund transfer to theGeneral Fund is the right way to help school districts controltheir budgets, Browning said. I suggest we find a different wayto do it. Rep. Heidi Schueurmann, R-Stowe, a co-sponsor of the amendment,said the passage of the rebasing language last year was like a magic show. She accused members of the Legislature and Shumlin,a Democrat, of a achieving a feat of legerdemain, of passing abudget without appearing to raise broad-based taxes even though therebasing move effectively raised local property taxes by 3 cents. I don t think anyone thinks it s not a broad-based tax, Schueurmann said. By approving this amendment we supporttransparency and a full, honest debate and we hold ourselvesaccountable for a bad decision. Sharpe, who opposed repeal, said necessary sacrifices have beenmade across state government, and the state s educational systemshouldn t be excepted. Since the Great Recession started we have asked every department,every community, every agency to tighten their belts, to do morewith less, Sharpe said. We are nearing the end of that. Signsare positive … we are recovering, but there is not $27million in the General Fund to restore the transfer in one fellswoop. The amendment failed, 94-48, and perhaps won t see the light ofday again. The Sharpe-Olsen proposal, however, will likely surface next in theSenate, in one form or another. Judging from the way theBrock-Flory amendment went down on Wednesday, it doesn t look likethe measure will have much traction in the other body. But the gameof whack-a-mole inside the Golden Bubble is sure to go on anyway. As for the governor, he s sticking with the rebasing and noincrease in the property tax. Whatever happens in the Green Room, the Democratic majority in theHouse has inoculated itself politically for the upcoming electionseason when property taxpayers in many communities could besuffering from sticker shock. With 151 towns reporting budgets,spending rates are at 2.65 percent, or about 2.65 cents, and thoughthe spending increase could dip, the Joint Fiscal Office has runcalculations for a 3.5 percent jump. Add to that the 3 centrebasing amount and you ve got yourself a noticeable hike. Correction: We originally omitted the names of the followingDemocratic representatives who supported the Browning amendment:Peg Andrews of Rutand, Michel Consejo of Sheldon, John Moran ofWardsboro, Larry Townsend of Randolph and Linda Waite-Simpson.Independent Paul Poirier of Barre City also supported theamendment. We are high quality suppliers, our products such as Inflatable Sports Games , China Inflatable Bounce Houses for oversee buyer. To know more, please visits Commercial Inflatable Slide.
Related Articles -
Inflatable Sports Games, China Inflatable Bounce Houses,
|