Vermont Tiger

Your Tax $ At Work

2009-11-21T12:04:06-05:00

Hey, I got an idear. Let's make that gas station of Billy Carter's into a national monument. Billy was a good 'ol boy and if the guvm'nt can sell enough cold beer and catfish bait to the tourists who come in, the deal might just turn a dollar.

The Great Ideas of 2009

2009-11-21T10:54:27-05:00

Illinois Democratic Rep. Danny Davis, a member of the Congressional subcommittee that oversees the Postal Service (and, until recently, its chairman), told CBSNews.com in an interview that the agency "is between a rock and a hard place."

Ah, yes. The felicity of the phrasing could come only from a member of the political class.

"It's just not generating the money that you need in order to keep operating," he said.

Likewise, the sophisticated economic analysis.

Davis said he was open to cutting Saturday service - perhaps on a rolling basis, so that certain communities would lack Saturday delivery once or twice a month - as well as loosening the health benefit requirements. He also backed a government bailout for the embattled agency if that's what it takes to keep it afloat.
"We've bailed out a lot of things, and I think the Postal Service is probably as important in one sense as some of the other places where we have put public money," he said.

What the hey. In for a dime in for a dollar. To coin a phrase ... and pardon the pun.

Added Davis: "I'm not afraid of spending public money to keep money flowing."

Such backbone. Thank God for the magnificent courage of the political class.

When The Going Gets Tough ...

2009-11-21T10:43:27-05:00

A shrinking grand list and rising operating costs add up to a potential nightmare for Brattleboro taxpayers -- either huge increases in property taxes, big cuts in education and town services, or a combination of the two.
Reformer

The tough shut down Yankee.

Developing Story - ".... hide the decline...." (?!)

2009-11-21T09:17:28-05:00

By Daniel Foty

There's a story developing today that hasn't yet been completely clarified. However, what we already do know is both very interesting - and potentially earth-shattering.

What we do is that unknown hackers broke into the computer systems of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UK). A great deal of information was copied away, and that information has been made available on the interwebs.

That information consists of more than 1000 e-mails and several dozen documents.

For the moment, there's no need to rush to any judgment - pending final dispositions about the veracity of the material released.

But this is a huge story no matter what has actually transpired.

If this is a hoax, it's a hoax on a truly epic scale - one that exceeds belief.

But if this information turns out to be genuine.... this is a bombshell that clearly calls into doubt all of the "research" that's been promoting the notions of "global warming"/"climate change" - as manifestly fraudulent.

As is usual, "the investigation is continuing" and such. But a BBC report quoting a University spokesman has the following intriguing details:

"A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

....

"'Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.'"

Again, this is a developing story - but it has explosive potential.

Those interested in a quick summary (including text of several of the e-mails in question) written yesterday by the ever-alert Anthony Watts can find it here.

Over in the UK, James Delingpole has gone through the e-mails, and has categorized quotes and additional commentary here.

And my Australian friend Tim Blair is already amused by the stunned attempts at "nothing to see here, folks - move along" - as he describes here.

As noted at the outset, this is a developing story - so we'll have to see how the veracity of these documents proves out.

For those who might be interested in examining the docu-dump first-hand, just search on the "word" foi2009.zip - there are already plenty of places where this one-file compressed archive may be found. One caution, particularly for those lacking high-speed internet access - that file carries a size of nearly 62MB.

We should know more about this potential bombshell next week.

Enough, Already, With The Economic Development ...

2009-11-20T11:27:26-05:00

So says Susan Bartlett, member of the Vermont Senate and candidate for the job of governor, one of five who appeared at a meeting in Burlington last night where:

Two of the candidates, Racine and Bartlett, pointedly talked about the importance of protecting the environment, then about the need for economic development.
"I think it is way past time that the environment be talked about first," Bartlett said.

This is, no doubt, because there hasn't been much to talk about on the economic development front for the last ten years, or so, during which time Ms. Bartlett has served in Montpelier killing off the prospects for economic development by voting for higher taxes and increased regulation at every opportunity.

And there will be even less economic development to talk about should Ms. Bartlett, or any of the four other candidates who appeared with her last night be elected as Vermont's next governor. She, like the others, supports closing down the Yankee nuclear plant which is – to put it plainly – an action that is not even neutral when it comes to economic development.

It is hostile and once it is done, it is for sure that we won't be talking about economic development – first, last, or anywhere in-between.

Correction

2009-11-20T10:30:15-05:00

We made a mistake.

It happens (every couple of hours or so, it sometimes seems) and we try to admit them and learn from them.

In this case, our mistake was pointed out to us by one of our friends in the Vermont press. We have some and we sympathize with them. They are trying to do a job that grows increasingly more difficult and they have to cope with rapidly shrinking resources.

Anyway ... our friend has informed us that, contrary to what we published here, the Times Argus did cover the event at which all Democratic candidates for governor said they were in favor of shutting down Vermont Yankee. Thatcher Moats' story dealt with the event's speaker and not the forum at which the candidates made their Vermont Yankee promises. This was a news judgment based on the fact that it was not the first time the candidates were supposed to appear together.

We regret that we did not make the necessary distinctions and apologize to our friends in the Vermont press.
gn

Friday Poetry Corner

2009-11-20T08:11:17-05:00

by Daniel Foty

Hmm....

Hair blows in the wind.
After years there is still wind.
Sadly no more hair.

That's a little haiku by Herman van Rompuy; he's apparently writing about himself, but that's a perfect ode to Vermont's uniformly follicly-challenged Congressional delegation....

And who is Herman van Rompuy? Apparently, he was recently (all done "on the inside" of course - that's Europe) elevated to the post of Prime Minister of Belgium - and more recently his name has been leaked as a possible choice (again, all done by insider politics - again, the European Way) for the new post of President of the European Union (EU).

What do we know about his politics? Well, there's this:

"The man wants to impose all sorts of new taxes across the whole continent...."

So he does indeed sound like a kindred spirit for Vermont's remarkably-undiverse Congressional delegation....

UPDATE: It's official - van Rompuy it is. Poor Europeans....

College Costs

2009-11-20T06:00:00-05:00

by Art Woolf

California's dire fiscal problems have led the state to take many actions to try to put its fiscal house in order, including cutting the state's contribution to the University of California system--one of the best, if not the best, public higher education system in the nation. Today the California Board of Regents announced that it will increase tuition (called fees there) by a whopping 32%.

Currently, fees are $8,700 for an in-state student, quite a bargain considering that a California resident could go to Berkeley for $8,700 or Stanford for a sticker price of $37,000 and get a similar education. Next year, with the 32% increase, the UC schools' tuition will be about $11,600. At UVM, an in-state student currently pays a sticker price of $11,700, that is, the same as Berkeley's will be.

Of course, the sticker price is not the true price, as Sandy Baum (who once applied for a position in UVM's economics department) points out in the New York Times Economix blog. She notes that despite the public perception that a college education is increasingly unaffordable, the sticker price is not the same as the net price paid by students after grants and aid are factored in:

At public four-year colleges, the sticker price rose by 20 percent over the past five years (these are inflation-adjusted dollars, as are all historical comparisons I’m making), but the average net price fell $400 — from about $2,000 to $1,600. At private four-year colleges the sticker price rose by 15 percent, but the average net price fell 9 percent, or about $1,100.

Cutting to the Chase

2009-11-19T10:07:24-05:00

by
Hugh Kemper

By Montpelier standards, Education Commissioner Vilaseca’s letter to school administrators and board members regarding FY11 budgets was a breath of fresh air, a welcome first step. Its call for fiscal responsibility, however, could have achieved clarion heights had the letter:

(1) made much clearer the critical connection between Vermont’s General Fund – which is on life-support – and the Education Fund which, as a result, will likely bear the full burden (along with property taxes) of any increases in education spending,

(2) been much more specific and forceful regarding why education spending must be reduced and how this must be accomplished, i.e., by reducing staff related expenses that account for 80% of current education spending, and

(3) been more creative and aggressive in proposing initiatives to streamline K-12’s anachronistic statewide administrative structure and to reign in exploding Special Education costs.

In short, the Commissioner’s letter should have made these three points fully and forcefully to provide the political cover to facilitate the tough, fiscally responsible decisions that school administrators and school boards need to make. What follows is how I would have addressed these three issues unconstrained, of course, by the dictates of political correctness or fear of hurting anyone’s feelings.

Critical Connection Between the General Fund and Education Fund

We can’t spend money we don’t have or can obtain only by increasing already exorbitantly high and onerous property taxes.

Due to the dramatic decline in current and expected revenues the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Committee projects a $237 million General Fund operating deficit over the next two years without a change in course. Basically, the General Fund is on life-support and cannot be counted on to help fund increases in education spending. More specifically, per the Legislature, the FY10 $240.8 million transfer from the General Fund to the Education Fund will remain flat for FY11. And it is likely, given the tremendous pressure on the General Fund, that portions of education related pension costs which have been paid for historically by the General Fund will be transferred to the Education Fund. In short, the Education Fund is on its own to fund increases in education spending and will likely need to fund a greater share of already existing education costs.

To put the Education Fund’s funding challenge in perspective, it is important to understand how, of late, the General Fund’s annual transfer to the Education Fund has been picking up the tab for approximately 33% of education spending. As the General Fund depends on personal income and sales taxes to fund approximately 70% of its expenditures, one way to look at how education spending has been financed is as follows:

* 100% of education property taxes (net of prebate) have been paying for approximately 66% of education spending….plus

* 45% of personal income taxes have been paying for approximately 23% of education spending…plus
* 33% of sales taxes have been paying for approximately 9% of total spending

With current projections for General Fund revenues for the rest of FY10 well below those for FY06 there are no silver bullets over the near term or likely over the intermediate term that will relieve pressures on the General Fund or, in turn, the concurrent pressure on the Education Fund. To relieve this pressure on the Education Fund (and, of course, on property taxes), it is critically important therefore to contain education spending.

The Imperative Need to Reduce Staff Related Costs

The plight of the economy and the General Fund is the bad news. The good news is ... this plight affords K-12 education the opportunity to do what is long overdue, i.e., to rectify the profligate education spending that has occurred since enactment of Act 60/68. Public K-12’s capacity (primarily staffing) far exceeds the resources required to provide a quality education. As staff related costs comprise approximately 80% of current education spending, this means these costs must be reduced in line with current and projected enrollment. Reducing the number of teachers and teaching aides alone to levels that would remain arguably still excessive would generate annual savings approximating $110 million.

To put K-12’s excess capacity into perspective, let’s look at enrollment and staffing numbers:

* Current fall enrollment (FY09) stands at 92,572 pupils, down 13,769 or 12.9% from FY97’s peak of 106,341 pupils.

* Since FY97, however, total K-12 staffing has increased by 23.1% or by 3,500 from 15,555 to 19,145 (FY08).

* Vermont’s current (FY09) Pupil/Teacher (10.9:1), Pupil/Teaching Aide (21.1:1), and Pupil/Staff (4.8:1) ratios are in a league of their own as the lowest in the country. With enrollment expected to continue to decline steadily to approximately 85,000 pupils by 2013, failure to begin now to proactively manage staffing levels down would result in even more unconscionable excess capacity and would be fiscally irresponsible by any objective standard.

The Pupil/Teacher (P/T) and Pupil/Teaching Aide (P/TA) ratios are egregiously high and indefensible for education provided at public expense. Not surprisingly, the increase in teachers and teaching aides account for 64.6% of the increase in total staffing between FY97 and FY08- the teachers by 1,016 to 8,728 and teaching aides by 1,032 to 4,376.

The application of a 15:1 P/T ratio for regular education and a 7:1 P/T ratio for special education and limiting teaching aides to special education duties and EEE-K pupils (at a 15:1 P/TA ratio) would result for FY11 in 1,445 fewer teachers and 700 fewer teaching aides than employed in FY08, The resulting P/T ratio of 12.8:1 and P/TA of 24.4:1 remain very respectable and, arguably, still too low. This 2,145 reduction in staffing alone would generate annual savings in wages and benefits of approximately $110 million.

The excess of teachers and teaching aides is, of course, not the only source of unsustainable education spending. There are too many administrators and support staff as well. As approximately 29% of these employees are located in supervisory unions, superintendents, principals and school boards will need to review thoroughly the costs and benefits of all administrative/support staff in an effort to reach a target cost reduction of between 5% &10% which is roughly in line with the DOE’s 8% cost reduction target for FY11.

Finally, on this issue of reducing staff related costs, we urge those of you currently engaged in negotiating teacher and support staff contracts effective FY11 that these contracts be limited to one year (i.e., applicable to FY11 only), that wages remain flat (i.e., at FY10 levels) and that employees be required, if they are not already doing so, to pay for 20% of healthcare costs.

The Need to Restructure K-12’s Anachronistic Administrative Structure and Reign in Special Education Costs.

While not possible given time constraints to favorably impact FY11 budgets, everyone involved must do the necessary hard work to come up with recommendations for legislative action to modernize K-12’s anachronistic administrative structure and to better manage exploding special education costs. Doing so is long overdue and should achieve a more rational business oriented structure for managing these costs in the future.

Conclusion

Vermont’s unprecedented economic challenges require unprecedented cost containment initiatives across all areas of state spending. For K-12 cost containment, initiatives are readily identifiable and long overdue. These initiatives are fully consistent with our collective obligation to continue to provide the requisite capacity for a quality education. That said, this is a formidable challenge as cutbacks are rarely without controversy and often confrontational. However, working together we can get this done and make a significant contribution towards getting Vermont back on a sustainable economic basis for the long haul.

Well, that’s how I would have addressed the substantive points that needed to be made. While much of this message is not new news to VT readers, I hope it serves as a useful refresher on the issues as well as an inducement to engage directly in the current school budget process.

HK, 11/19/09

We Can Take A Punch ... Can't We?

2009-11-19T08:38:50-05:00

The boards asked for salary increases for all teachers to be set at 2.5 percent, 2.75 percent and 2.75 percent over a three-year contract, citing a down economy and loss of jobs in the area that have strapped local taxpayers.
The associations asked for a 5 percent across-the-board increase in the first year, 5.25 percent the second year and 5.48 percent in the third year, with varying percentages in each school, citing a desire to bring their wages up to par with Mill River Union High School teachers by the third year of the contract, and an economy that's improving.

* * *

Ratepayers of Central Vermont Public Service Corp. could see their electric rates climb 30 percent over the next five years, CVPS President Robert Young told local lawmakers Tuesday.

Just a couple of random items from the Herald. (here & here) Taxes will also be going up – but, of course – and if past is prologue (as they say) then voters in Vermont will just stand there and take it.

Won't they?