Reply #61: editting computer strikes again [View All]

[dsc]

MONTPELIER — Vermont is headed toward a $25 million deficit in its state budget as the recession continues to catch up with state government.

Administration Secretary Kathleen Hoyt said Monday the shortfall would be covered by withdrawing money from the state’s savings account known as the rainy day fund.

“The significant point is that the revenues for fiscal year 2002 have been progressively slowing and we will undoubtedly dip into the rainy day funds at the end of June,” Hoyt said.

end of quote.

The part Dean had control of, the existance of a rainy day fund. covered the part which Bush caused, the fall in revenues. In short, like a prudent person he planned for the future. Good for him.

Second article.

A total of 116,000 Vermont households received prebate checks under the income sensitivity provisions of Act 60. Given that there are more than 240,000 housing units in the state, fewer than half of the households in the state received an Act 60 prebate check.


Act 60’s income sensitivity provisions benefited just a small group of Vermonters: 11,600 Vermont households, representing 10 percent of the prebate recipients, received an average prebate check for $1,500; 65,000 households who received the smallest checks (and the same amount of money in total as the top 10 percent of prebate recipients) received an average prebate check for $256. What this shows is that a very small number of Vermont households received a large share of the income sensitivity payments and a large number of Vermont households received checks for a small amount of money.

snip

The gap between low and high spending towns has not changed much as a result of Act 60. Statistical measures of the disparity remain high. However, since Act 60 was passed, the lowest spending towns have raised their per pupil spending by more than the average increase in school spending in the state.

Total education spending by state and local governments in Vermont increased by 17.3% from FY98 to FY01. Local share spending is now 40% higher than it was in FY99. If such rapid increases in a nearly $850 million program continue into the future, significant tax increases of some son will be needed. Act 60 will do this by “automatically” raising local share property tax rates substantially to raise the needed revenue. This is a continuation of the school spending and property tax trends that existed in Vermont before Act 60 was passed.

end of quote.

There is more in there making my case but I am out of space I can legally quote. The first two paragraphs show a program which did what it was supposed to. This was not supposed to lower the tax burden it was supposed to change who paid it. The rebates are supposed to help low income people. They are. About 40% of people got rebates. Some got a lot others got only little. That was a function of two things, both progressive in nature. One, you paid 2% of income up to 75k or the property tax which ever is lower. Thus low income people got large rebates and upper middle class ones got small ones. When people like Kerry and Edwards advocate policies like this you call the policies good. When Dean does it you call them bad. Funny how that works.