To the Editor:
There is a heated debate in Vermont right now about how to make up a $200 million budget shortfall for fiscal year 2010. The Governor's approach is to focus on budget cuts rather than raising revenue. There are compelling arguments for maintaining or even augmenting the budgets of programs like Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and VPHARM, which assist vulnerable Vermonters, while on the other side there are harsh realities that must be faced.
One area that faces cuts but does not have the visibility or human face of TANF or VPHARM is housing. The Vermont Housing Conservation Board (VHCB) specifically faces cuts of $9 million, or 70% of its budget. Apart from the humanitarian issue that this could leave many Vermonters out in the cold, this move does not make economic sense. The reasons are myriad: loss of workforce housing and job cuts in the housing provider industry, to name a few. One reason close to home for me pertains to programs that help homeowners and first-time homebuyers. We should not be taking buyers out of the market when tighter credit is already forcing them out in droves. If the housing market collapses, so too do home equity, financial security, town grand lists, and as a result of the latter, schools.
Like it or not, budget cuts will have to be a reality in the coming years; however, the cuts should make sense and be tempered through revenue-raising measures such as modest tax increases and applications for federal aid. The federal government can work together with states to close budget gaps. Here's a proposal: rather than handing out billions as we did to the banks, Washington can share the burden with states through matching grants for every dollar cut or raised by the state.
No plan is perfect, but if we don't approach this problem creatively, the burden will fall on those Vermonters who can least afford it. And if nothing else, the recent cuts at IBM underscore that "those Vermonters" could be any one of us.
