A slightly different version of this was published in The Colchester Sun on January 10, 2008.
Your comments, Senator Ginny Lyons, and Representatives John Zenie, Kristy Spengler, Jim Condon and Gaye Symington published in The Colchester Sun of January 3, 2008 portend the outcome of the second half of the Legislative biennium: Find more taxpayer dollars to spend on______ (fill in the blank).
The issues you mentioned include paying for, or "doing something about" health care, climate change remediation, energy efficiency and affordability, education and its funding, quality of Vermont life, economic development, affordable housing, workforce development, maintenance of highways and bridges, the circumferential highway, and developing a more robust public transportation system, among others. No one suggests spending fewer taxpayer dollars. Why not?
A reading of your columns would benefit from soft violins in the background to accompany the flowing rhetoric. However, snare drums and a few thumps on the bass drum would help. Missing from most comments is the harsh reality you face this session... where will the money come from to pay for all the services and improvements you hope to deliver?
How you plan to deal with these issues, as I read your comments, are by working together, providing leadership, homegrown ingenuity, promoting exercise and good eating habits, trend-setting, team work, supporting local businesses and farmers and diversified ideas. As valuable as these behavioral qualities may be in arriving at legislation, the harsh reality is most Vermont taxpayers want to pay less, not more, to live here.
Please heed our advice.Your best contribution and an example to struggling Vermonters would be a reduction in taxes, certainly not an increase. Please seriously consider reducing the size of our tax-supported programs that have taken on a life of their own. You have enabled government to grow too rapidly in the recent past, faster than any other New England state.
While probably too late this session, Governor Douglas, if truly serious about his affordability agenda, should submit a budget to you that is 3-5% less than spent last year. Expansive legislative thinking requiring more taxpayer dollars or redistribution of income to improve our already high quality of life should be off the table. Alas, because it's an election year, this cutback strategy is very likely not on your minds.
But if your Legislative leaders and the Governor can agree on a spending cap in advance of debating program details, you could reorient your thinking to less government, not more. I know the pressures on you will be enormous from all the special interest groups to increase spending. I sympathize with you in this regard, but the best approach to all of them is "we can't afford it."
Please, lawmakers, don't waste time fiddling with the world's climate this session. Arguing about global warming is a waste of your time and my tax dollars. Your debates can do nothing to change the dynamics of the earth. The only benefit might be for you to curry votes with certain constituencies.
Instead, support policies that promote a reliable energy supply. If you must have an expanded all-fuels conservation program, please fund it from the savings that are generated. That's much more equitable than redistributing income by levying surcharges on everyone's fuels to pay for energy conservation that benefits individuals.
Please don't fool around debating our carbon footprint. If you think that's important, more efficient use of energy and fuels will take care of that as a by-product. Don't scurry about trying to educate everyone about carbon credits and pollution trading schemes. There are as many drawbacks as benefits in that morass. And please, oh please, any mention of a carbon tax should fall into a black hole.
As an example of working together, how about a joint statement early in the session from the Legislative leadership about your shared priorities to set the tone?
Two final reminders... please spend less and go home early.
No comments:
Post a Comment