The Vermont House failed to override Gov. Phil Scott’s latest budget veto Tuesday afternoon in a vote that broke almost entirely along partisan lines. A two-thirds majority was needed to override; the final tally was 90 yes, 51 no.
Every Republican present voted to sustain their governor’s veto, including those who had previously voted “yes” on the budget bill. Only three Republicans were absent.
There was no debate before the roll call. It appeared that all sides knew how the vote would turn out and saw no reason to delay the inevitable.
Legislative leaders crafted the budget bill, H.13, to include the vast majority of a new spending plan while setting aside the few areas of disagreement with Scott. It would have lifted the pressure of a pending government shutdown, which would happen on July 1 in the absence of a budget. But the governor vetoed the bill because, he argued, it would have done nothing to prevent a statutory increase in nonresidential property taxes. (Democratic leaders have said they would have addressed the automatic increase in separate legislation.)
Quite a few members took the floor afterward to explain their votes, and the arguments broke down along predictable lines. One view was shared by all: A crisis and potential shutdown could have been avoided — as long as the other side had been willing to surrender.
“The budget passed with tripartisan support and only 14 no votes,” said Rep. George Till (D-Jericho), referring to an initial House vote in May. He said that holding property tax rates level, as Scott is determined to do, would be “terrible and foolish fiscal policy” that would result in “higher taxes next year.”
“The legislature has had chances to advance a real compromise,” countered Rep. Kurt Wright (R-Burlington). “The legislature has wasted monumental amounts of time on a budget they knew would be vetoed.”
State Senate committees plan to start work Wednesday morning on yet another budget plan. But the divide remains, between a governor hellbent on keeping property tax rates level and a legislature dead set against using available revenue to achieve that. At this point, the middle ground looks more like No Man’s Land.
Correction, June 19, 2018: An earlier version of this story misstated when the Senate was to start work on a new budget plan.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Ms. Boutin – You said “Democrats don’t want business in Vermont.”
I pointed out that all New England states have lost a large percentage of manufacturing jobs since 1990 (most more than VT). The point is that these changes have nothing whatsoever to do with one or the other political parties. They reflect national and international economic forces way beyond the control of governors or legislatures. Having said that, all governor’s in the last quarter century have supported numerous economic development policies and programs, regardless of Party (although I don’t think some have been terribly effective). You are free to claim that some elected officials and one major Party don’t care about jobs, but there is no evidence to support that.
BTW – What is a “true Vermonter”?
Mr Hoffer,
I never once said it was unique to Vermont or that it’s worse here than elsewhere. of losing businesses. Don’t put words in my mouth I said Vermont !!! Many of the Governors, the 2 so-called Senators, and the Congressman could care less about keeping businesses here in Vermont. Remember Dean was out running around the country soliciting to be president instead of being here in Vermont acting like a Governor, and trying to talk to IBM when almost 2,000 people got laid off on short notice, I am not stupid I know my facts. I’m a true Vermonter and again I know my FACTS !!!!
John Freitag – You recommend shifting certain costs from the Ed Fund to the General Fund. I asked you how you would cover those new GF costs and you said it was up to the legislature. It’s easy to say that other people have to decide what’s important and what’s not (and how to pay for the former), but I was expecting to hear your view of the matter. I’m still waiting.
Donna Boutin said that “We had GE, IBM, some factories”
The implication is that the loss of manufacturing jobs is somehow unique to Vermont or that it’s worse here than elsewhere. That is incorrect. Here are the figures for New England: 1990 – 2018.
RI – 58%
MA – 50%
CT – 47%
ME – 46%
VT – 33%
NH – 31%
Facts matter.
Mr. Hoffer,
Like many I appreciate your willingness to engage on issues as well as the professional way you run your office.
I also appreciate your acknowledgement of the many legislative mandated costs outside of K-12 education controlled by school boards in the Education Fund. It is vitally important for transparency and good government that people understand the implication of their votes. Perhaps the only good thing about the budget impasse is the attention it has focused on the shenanigans that have gone on since the Shumlin Administration with dumping programs in the Ed Fund and not providing funding Act 46 incentives.
With a massive revenue surplus we can set this right . Balancing future budgets will require hard looks at effectiveness of all programs and setting priorities, something not being done now when raising property taxes can always be the fall back position.