As the legislature and governor try to get a budget together for the coming fiscal year (FY10), the "out" years look pretty bad. If the legislature has its way, the budget deficit in FY11 would be $79 million, in FY12 it would be $173 million, and in FY13 $146 million. The Governor's plan isn't much rosier, with deficits of $32 million, $101 million, and $73 million in those three years. Without the federal stimulus money, the deficits would be around $200 in each year. And if you ignore the stimulus money that we're getting in FY10, we'd have a $200 million deficit this year with the legislature's plan and a $160 million deficit with the governor's.
If and when the folks in Montpelier finally get a balanced budget together for FY10, they will no doubt be punting on the out years' problems. Next year's legislature will pick up the ball on the one yard line. The gory details are here.
3.5% growth!!!
As an investor I like that projection.
As a grownup, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
MAYBE in 2012...Maybe...
Posted by: Tim | April 06, 2009 at 09:55 AM
Have our legislators been drug tested? How else could they possibly create such deficits by deliberate intent? If they are not on drugs, so we have the power to impeach the ones responsible? Aas I read the Vermont Constitution, we may have the power of recall for the bad ones.
Posted by: Karen Kerin | April 06, 2009 at 04:25 PM
Apparently the legislature isn't interested in looking at job growth rates published by the DOL. If they're expecting revenue growth rates of 3.5%, they are completely incapable of reading a trend line. Has Vermont's GDP gone up 3.5% in any one of the past 5 years? I don't have data on the most recent years but it's probably a really, really safe bet that the state's GDP is just around zero the past few years. These 4 data points average to 3.3 per year - which may explain why the legislature is comfortable using a 3.5 rate to project revenues.
2003: 3.7
2004: 4.1
2005: 2.5
2006: 2.8
What will happen 2 years from now when those projections fail to materialize? Hope for another bailout? Raise taxes on those selfish rich people again? If there are any left to raise taxes on?
Source: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/2007/gsp0607.htm
Posted by: Chris Campion | April 06, 2009 at 07:57 PM
As I have stated previously Tax the land that is in land use, those individuals that hold vast tracks of land do not pay their fair share of taxes!
Posted by: Dennis Lukas | April 06, 2009 at 11:44 PM