Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, has repeatedly said he’ll only sign a budget that includes a plan to reduce teachers’ health insurance costs. Scott, though, wants to realize the savings by bringing collective bargaining to the state level while most Democrats do not.
After several weeks of negotiations, legislative leaders announced Wednesday that they would go ahead and pass the budget on their terms, with or without the governor’s blessing. A vote could come as soon as Thursday.
If Scott follows through on his veto threat, the Democrat-controlled legislature would break and then return to hold a “special session,” likely in mid-June.
The political circumstances were different in 2009 when the last — and possibly only — budget veto took place. After then-governor Jim Douglas, a Republican, rejected the bill, Democrats, who had a super majority in the Statehouse, simply overrode it. But this time, Dems don’t have the numbers and House Republicans have pledged to sustain the veto.
That means the legislature would have to go back to the drawing board and again try to pass a budget acceptable to Scott.
If they can’t? Vermont Public Radio’s Peter Hirschfeld put that question to Gov. Phil Scott Wednesday.
“Oh, we’ve got a long time between now and July 1,” he responded.
Not that long, though. “Six weeks,” Hirschfeld said.
“I’m confident that common sense will prevail and we’ll have a budget come July 1,” Scott reiterated.
When pressed, the governor admitted, “I haven’t looked into it but I would assume essential services would continue.”
“Would there have to be cuts?” Seven Days’ Terri Hallenbeck asked.
“I’m not sure,” the governor responded.
When Hirschfeld put that question to legislative leaders, House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D-South Hero) told him, “I think that’s a great question for the governor.”
The only person in the Statehouse Wednesday who could offer a definitive answer was Stephen Klein, the legislature’s chief fiscal officer. When asked, he pulled up the Vermont Constitution on a reporter’s phone and read a single line: “No money shall be drawn out of the Treasury, unless first appropriated by act of legislation.”
In other words, when the budget stops, the money stops. To avert a state government shutdown, the legislature could take temporary measures such as passing legislation that would fund state government for days, weeks or months until they agree on a permanent budget.
By the end of the day, Klein had been asked the question so many times he’d taken to carrying photocopies of the pertinent section of the constitution.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
It is irresponsible of Governor Scott to threaten a budget veto.
It is irresponsible of Governor Scott not to know the consequences of said budget veto.
It is irresponsible for Ashe and Johnson to leave $26 million on the table when property taxes and school funding are out of control.
That $26 million is a number Gov. Scott threw out there. Whereas I am all for saving money on property taxes and feel that it is much needed, I’m not going to scapegoat education as the singular cause for high property taxes. It seems some people need to do a little more than just accept spoon fed information before jumping on a bandwagon.
I took this from a legislator’s Facebook comment. Important things to remember about the budget:
1.) Our budget bill passed both houses with just one dissenting vote. One. Dems, Progs and Republicans all supported the budget.
2.) The Republican caucus would not have supported the budget if they’d gotten signals from the governor that it was unacceptable.
3.) The budget bill is unrelated to the current fight over teachers’ health insurance and collective bargaining. It is in a separate bill.
4.) The governor has indicated he will veto our budget that passed in a landslide in both houses.
5.) Why? It could be retribution that we won’t cave on the collective bargaining issue. It could be petulance. It could be he planned to veto it all along as a sign of “strength”.
6.) Bottom line: nobody in the statehouse can think of a time when a budget was vetoed over issues entirely unrelated to the budget.
This is not how we do politics in Vermont. We all deserve better. We deserve thoughtful leadership that is focused on policy, not public relations.
Phil Scott raises a fairy tale number in April that he could have raised in January when there was time to address the issues in both the House and the Senate. Instead he ambushed the legislature and made a nonnegotiable demand. When the legislature tried in good faith to address his late-raised issue, he doubled down on what he wanted. Now he’s like a petulant schoolboy demanding acquiescence or he’ll take his ball and go home. This is ridiculous. If the number really is $26 million, which I doubt, it deserves careful and close shepherding through the legislative process, not guerilla tactics from the governor. It’s not as if the sky will fall if it’s not addressed this year. Of course the funding of schools is an important issue, and a major driver in property taxes. Let the legislature do its work in a responsible manner, and allow an equitable and democratic determination of where to use any savings.
Finally Vermont taxpayers and local school boards have a champion willing to face down the powerful VT NEA and teacher lobby. Governor Scott is risking his job, losing the NEA’s endorsement is a huge blow to any politician. No argument the union puts forth equals the terrible reality that Vermont pays more to educate our students than any other state.
Half the VT House, brave democrats and republicans, support this plan. Local school boards and taxpayers support this plan. We need to show our support! Teachers have excellent pay and benefits in Vermont, but they keep asking for more every year.
When will it stop? Never…unless you call your legislators and Governor Scott and let them know voters would like the VT NEA to negotiate with an equal partner and relieve local school boards of this never-ending battle. Every school superintendent in Vermont is outmatched in time, money, and resources by the VT NEA. Governor Scott is willing to help, we need to help him help us!
The Trumpification of Vermont. Phil Scott likes to go round and round in circles, banging fenders and pushing others off the track, a petrol wasting, ego driven motorhead in the Governor’s office when we need someone who is able to stand up for the real taxpayers who are suffering because of the greed and arrogance of the top wealth hoarders. If he had any courage, he would tell the national GOP that it’s time for the 1% to pay its fair share of the burden and to stop cutting funds for essential services like health care, education and feeding people.
In all of us, even in good men, there is a lawless wild-beast nature, which peers out in sleep.
Socrates
Putting political differences aside, I think we can all agree that 148 to 1 in support of the budget can hardly be considered a tri-partisian mandate. So stay strong, Guvnuh. Take the pole position! No more go-along-get-along- good- buddy- short-track King!
But be forewarned, when they wave that light blue flag with the yellow diagonal stripe in June, youve just been lapped by the Ashe-mobile!
“I’m not going to scapegoat education as the singular cause for high property taxes.”
What else is the cause for high property taxes? Is $19,000 per student not enough for you?
I think it’s time to point out VT currently spends $28k per pupil (actual pupils, not BS “equalized” pupils the state uses, which greatly inflates the denominator).
Higher spending doesn’t equate to better outcomes. That’s been proven. A case study is Massachusetts, which spends $11k LESS per pupil than we do, yet has better education outcomes for K-12.
Inconvenient truth is k-12 expenditure out of control. Part of the blame rests on the Brigham decision and Act 60, part of the blame rests on the legislatures obsession with preserving “local control” and tiny school districts. Blame can also be placed on the states “incomes sensitivitized” property tax structure where many VTers (>50%) are not fully held accountable to the passage of their school budgets, as their property taxes are deeply discounted. Most notably however, the NEA’s reckless greed is creating a roadblock to reforms that will both provide better outcomes and lower aggregate k-12 expenditure. They have become the chief driver of our affordability crisis.
Citation (data from national NEA): http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/april/vermo…
Keep throwing numbers around…$26 million, $19K, $28K. I agree that education spending in Vermont is near the top in the nation. Among the charts I’ve seen it is always in the top 8.
Teacher salaries are right around the middle in relation to the rest of the country. Teacher salaries alone are not pushing education spending to the top.
Special needs spending eats up a considerable amount of the education budget but nobody is going to be in favor of getting rid of those.
So let’s blame the teacher’s health care for this high price of education. Forget that health care in general needs reform and that for profit health care is far more disgusting than paying for education. Let’s also not look at why the burden of paying for education falls on the middle class property owner and not how this cost could be spread around. Let’s not look at why wages in Vermont are lower than average. Instead, let’s get out the pitchforks and torches and take out those greedy teachers.
The issue at hand is, at what level teacher healthcare negotiations should take place. Lade engages in diversion.
He agrees that education spending in VT is very high, but creates a diversion by saying that teacher salaries “alone” are not pushing education costs to the top. Well, at least 80% of the cost of local school budgets in VT are labor (i.e., salaries and benefits), so, yes, teacher salaries and benefits ARE primarily what’s driving VT education spending to the top of the country.
I agree that healthcare funding in VT in general is a problem and needs to be fixed nationally, but again that’s a diversion from the current issue of the teachers union wanting more and better benefits than what everyone else in VT gets.
Last, he again diverts with a comment about wages in VT being lower than average. That’s true. But the same legislators who are owned and controlled like robots by the teachers union are the very ones who have given us the tax, regulatory, and anti-business policies that make it impossible to do business here and for anyone — except the publicly-funded teachers, of course — to make a living in VT. Business is gone and the educated young have fled. There’s no one left to tax to death for publicly-funded health care and for the teachers’ exorbitant demands.
You are trying to marry together issues that do not belong together with a quick fix solution. Vermont’s economy is struggling, wages do not support the cost of living, and taxes are too high. This is not because teacher salaries are too high.
Teachers are not demanding they make more than everyone else. Their salaries are already in the middle of the pack. Middle of the pack spending on teacher wages should put Vermont’s education spending in the middle of the pack as well but this is not the case so other things are driving up this cost.
Reducing teacher wages and benefits does not solve the other issues but solving the other issues makes teacher compensation a non-factor.
If you look at the two largest State expenditures, they are education and healthcare (56%). The Governor’s proposal will not only save millions of dollars but will at the same time impact our two largest expenditures and presumably afford some relief to the property taxpayers and not alter the teacher’s benefits.
So, what’s the problem? The NEA and those legislators beholding to the NEA. It would be refreshing to see those legislators elevate the Vermont taxpayer over a special interest group in their list of priorities.
“You are trying to marry together issues that do not belong together with a quick fix solution. Vermont’s economy . . .”
No, it was you who introduced the state of the overall Vermont economy into the discussion. And you were right. The Vermont economy sucks. And that is not by accident. It is a direct and foreseeable result of the state’s long-term anti-business policies. Foisted upon us by the very same people who are the puppets of the teachers union in the legislature.
“Teachers are not demanding they make more than everyone else.”
That is just plain, obviously, and demonstrably false. Every time they negotiate a contract they seek wages and benefits that they absolutely, positively know that no one else in the state gets. Including the parents of all of the kids they are teaching, and the school board members sitting across the bargaining table.
“Their salaries are already in the middle of the pack.”
Middle of what “pack”? Where do you come up with this? Maybe in the “middle of the pack” nationally. But way above the average Vermont family income. One average teacher brings in more than most Vermont families.
“Reducing teacher wages and benefits does not solve the other issues …”
You keep repeating this propaganda. No one — absolutely no one — is talking about “reducing teacher wages.” The ONLY thing we are talking about is bargaining with the teachers union for healthcare benefits at the state level instead of at the local school board level. No one has made the case against this proposal. Not Tim Ashe. Not Mitzi Johnson. Not Martha Allen. No one.