The $19 Million Choice

 Politics by Emerson Lynn

Congress is about to cut Vermont a check for $19 million, and the money is to be used to prevent the layoffs of teachers in our public school system. 

A simple thanks would be the natural response from most states.

Not in Vermont.

The governor does not want to use the money to hire back teachers who have lost their jobs. He would prefer to use the money to pay down the teachers’ pension fund obligations and to reduce property taxes.

Republican gubernatorial nominee Brian Dubie is in firm agreement.

The Vt. NEA thinks otherwise and wants the money used to rehire teachers, and this position has been seconded by Vermont’s junior senator, Bernard Sanders. It’s also the position of Peter Shumlin, Mr. Dubie’s likely gubernatorial opponent in November’s general election. Mr. Shumlin was quoted in early August as saying: “Congress specifically outlined this is to save 300 Vermont jobs. If Brian Dubie wants to cut those jobs and send those folks to the unemployment lines, I think that’s a huge mistake.”

Both candidates are clear on their positions. Mr. Dubie wants to use it to lower property taxes and to plug a hole in the teachers’ pension program. Mr. Shumlin wants to use it to rehire 300 teachers who lost their jobs due to budget cuts approved by the voters last March.

The difference between the two should be instructive on two levels: first, their basic understanding of the state’s educational system; second, how the money could best be spent.

The money appropriated is for the current 2010-2011 school year but can be spent anytime between when the check first arrives and 27 months later. But the 300 number used by Mr. Shumlin? It’s a number arrived at by the feds – dividing the appropriated amount by the average wage. The state has no list of teachers who have lost their jobs.

It’s also important to contrast Vermont with the rest of the country. Other states are in much worse shape than Vermont and many have had to eviscerate their school budgets. In other states, teachers have been laid off in droves with some states opting for a four-day school week.

That has not been the case in Vermont. We have our challenges, but they do not approach that of other states. Elsewhere, student enrollment continues to rise, which exacerbates a school district’s problems when it also must cut teachers. In Vermont, our student enrollment has declined. In 1997 we had 106,341 students; in 2010 we had 91,134 students, a 14.3 percent loss. But our staff numbers in that same time period increased 25 percent. By 2013, student enrollment is to hit a low of 88,700.

Why would Mr. Shumlin and the union work to use a one-time check to protect a ratio that we all know needs to decline? Is that really helpful to teachers when it’s well understood that all they are doing is building up the pitch of the cliff? Wouldn’t it be smarter for the union to truly protect the long-term security of its members by agreeing that part of the $19 million should be applied to a drastically underfunded pension program?

The difference between Mr. Dubie and Mr. Shumlin on this issue is telling. Mr. Shumlin was pandering to the teachers union through restored jobs promises – even when the number of lost jobs is unknown, and the state’s teacher-pupil ratio is the nation’s lowest. Mr. Dubie is urging fiscal discipline saying Vermont can’t afford more teachers while educating fewer students, and he would use part of the money to support the teachers’ underfunded pension program.

Mr. Shumlin would also pledge all $19 million to rehire teachers whereas Mr. Dubie would use part of the money to reduce property taxes. Mr. Shumlin has said Vermont has no additional capacity to raise any tax, and yet, here is the perfect opportunity to offer some tax relief and, instead, he would use this one-time money to keep school costs above sustainable levels. Mr. Shumlin’s position would keep property taxes higher than they need to be, it would create worse problems later when schools had to adjust for the loss of the $19 million, and it would fail to address the teachers’ long-term crisis in its pension fund.

That’s a difference Vermonters can take to the bank.

Emerson Lynn is editor & publisher of the St. Albans Messenger where this essay first appeared.


 

Comments

[Jerry Coleman]

Ok Mr. Emerson, I'm surprised you didn't do the math. Correct me if I'm wrong but $19 million divided by 300 = $ 63,333 per job. Does that make sense to anybody except maybe a teacher!!!

[Dick Bayer]

Mr. Shumlin and the VTNEA realize the money was a pay back to the unions, and Mr. Dubie wants to help the state.

[Steve-o]

Right on! You don't need to be a Republican to realize this. Why must we continue to have Monpelier act as if they have their heads in the sand(or something else).

[djb]

To Vermonters that can read it would seem obvious that we have less students in our school system, and no near term prospect for this changing. Why therefore do we need to add back more educational employees? We need bridge repair, road repair, tax relief and corks to plug a rapidly leaking fiscal boat. This folly is why we cannot understand why a legislature that is supposedly representative of all Vermonters favors only the few. Beware the ides of November!

[Mark Shepard]

This should not even be a debate!

Until the pension fund is filled to where it should be any extra money should go toward filling it. That is the only way to save Vermont from a disastrous surprise increase in taxes, when the pensions are owed and taxpayers learn they are the ones holding the bag.

[Ed G. Mann]

Read the fine print. That money cannot be used for anything EXCEPT fattening teacher's wallets.

The State is locked into that position for the next year, at which point the State has a plethora of unionists, no money and the same pension problems.

[Ralph Colin]

Obama and Shumlin are of the same ilk, both using politics to pander to the VTNEA and both wasting valuable funds for a single, designated and totally unneeded purpose in order to gain votes. Is this the kind of government we want or need at a time when the economy finds itself in such dire straits? Isn't this an irresponsible use of funds which could be put to so much better use in other ways?

Do we really want this kind of leadership in our country and in our state. THINK, people!!!

[William Boardman]

Is that right? Does the law REQUIRE that the monay be spent only on teacher salaries.

Anyone read the statute?

Would it allow funding teaching positions this year [thereby lowering property taxes] BUT marking those positions for elimination with their funding [thereby addressing Vermont's fewer students]?

Since it might make everyone happyish, it can't be possible.

[David G]

Here is a thought... if the money has to be used to rehire teachers then lets quickly fire 300 more teachers and use the money to hire them back.

[Dave Usher]

Send the money back to Washington! We don't need to add yet more spending to Vermont's already bloated education budget.
Shumlin is pandering to his base and the NEA. Dubie and Douglas care about taxpayers.

[Bill]

Shummy and Senator Socialism are indeed doing just as Ralph said. They think it's still 2007 and nobody but their union beneficiaries will notice what they are doing. They think the gravy train will keep rolling for an eternity. A large portion of the electorate is eager to ambush the gravy train and kill the careers of those who stoke it.

Here is a question for Shummy: Senator Socialism isn't up until '12. You're up in 60 days (if you win the recount). Are you 100% certain of the Brooklyn native's motives?

[Glenn Eno]

Funding teachers is in NO WAY going to lower property taxes.

I did read a few weeks back that the money could not be used to fill holes in a budget. I also thought I saw that education spending must remain at or above the same percentage of total spending.

http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2010/08/stimulus-pushers---wsjcom.html

In other words- you must spend more to get more. If this is correct then we have no use for the money. It's same story over and over; the feds dangle a carrot in front of us knowing if we take it now we will need to continue begging for it in the future. Slaves to the almighty federal government.

If Vermont is half as independent and forward thinking as our liberals boast us to be, we would send the check back to Washington with a note saying:

"If you ever come up with an intelligent solution to our economic crisis please let us know. Until then, please keep your corrupt, taxpayer enslaving, power grabbing fingers out of our pie. Find another way to pay your union sheep".

If things were allowed to crash and reset 2 years ago we would be farther along with the recovery today. Bringing the economy back from the brink simply means the government got involved and prolonged the agony of common Americans while paying off supporters on the taxpayer's dime.

Bernie Madoff is in prison while Washington plays shell games with trillions of dollars.

[Dennis Lukas]

If the state refuses the money it will be sent directly to the school board, congress learned its lesson after states refused stimulus funds.The money can not be used to fill state pension budget gaps.School spending must stay at previous or higher levels.
This is washingtons way of over riding the states control of public schools. The NEA is now protected like the UAW. And remember,"It's for the children" even if they have to spend the rest of thier lives paying it back!