Fuel Cost and Corrections

This will be a very challenging year for the state budget. I hope that, even though it's an election year, we will steer clear of short term band aid solutions and instead focus on long term policy decisions about how we are doing the job of providing essential services to Vermonters.

Two examples of such longer term policy approaches are in energy policy and corrections policies.

Vermonters are paying $2 billion dollars a year for fuel to power their vehicles and heat their homes. Only four years ago, that was $1.1 billion a year. That means we've taken out of our pockets an additional $900 million a year to stay warm and get where we need to go. (Just as a point of reference, the entire school property tax paid by Vermont residents, businesses and second homeowners is $750 million.)

The legislature will put forward a comprehensive plan to reduce home heating fuel use, with the goal of saving Vermonters money and ensuring that public heating assistance dollars are going to heat the home, not the air outside it. That effort will require upfront investment to be effective. We need to make that investment if we're going to help Vermonters lower their fuel costs.

On the corrections front, Vermont remains one of the safest states in the country and has had a declining crime rate over the last decade. Despite that, our prison population has more than quadrupled in 20 years and our costs have doubled again in just 10 years. Vermont now spends more on corrections than we higher education.

The problem is clear: our prisons are engulfing more and more dollars and the rate at which those who have completed their sentences re-offend is high. Last year Rep Lorber of Burlington learned of efforts in other states to address similar challenges. The legislature joined with the Douglas administration and the judiciary to hire the national experts who have worked with those states. We asked whether there are alternatives to incarceration that can (a) make society safer while (b) saving Vermonters scarce budget dollars. They answered, "yes."

The best answer to crime is not always prison. In fact, the experts say that if you incarcerate certain people, it can make matters worse. But if you create less expensive alternatives to incarceration that address the underlying problems, we can be more successful. The Council on State Government's Justice Center has recommended Vermont provide more drug/alcohol treatment alternatives, provide probationers with incentives for good behavior, and beef up reintegration planning for those leaving prison. Rather than investing in prison beds, we can invest in programming that's cheaper, more effective, more humane, and in the long term leads to safer communities.

Conservative estimates show that these reforms could save Vermonters a net of $50 million or much more over 10 years. It involves a reduced incarceration population and more programs to address drug and alcohol addiction, at the root of many crimes. Some benefits are expected immediately, while others will build over time. Plus, if we don't act now, our prison population will grow more than three times the rate of our state's population growth, even though crime is not expected to rise.

So, even though the budget is constrained and Vermonters are feeling the pressure of the costs of health care, fuel, property taxes, and housing, we must address the underlying causes of those cost pressures, not just figure out how to get by one year at a time.

I am looking forward to the coming session and, as always, welcome your thoughts at gsym@together.net or speaker@leg.state.vt.us or 324 Browns Trace, Jericho.