TO T HE EDITOR: THE NORTHFIELD NEWS CONTRARY TO some recent letters in this forum, the Gov. Douglas' proposed budget absolutely would have raised property taxes. There is simply no way around it. In the first instance, his proposal would have raised property taxes on middle-income families making between $75,000 and $90,000 per year by eliminating income sensitivity. So, those families, including many families in Northfield, would have been immediately impacted. Second, the expectation that individual school districts would implement the Governor's idea of spending caps without consideration of the impacts on their own budgets and planning needs is completely unrealistic. Without any mandate, or realistic plan to do so the districts would have been left to fend for themselves, and undoubtedly many local property tax rates would have been increased. Finally, when the final bill for the teacher's retirement fund would came due, it would have been placed (under the Governor's plan) on the backs of property taxpayers, again raising local property taxes. There is no other way to pay for that commitment if it is shifted to the Education Fund.

I encourage anyone who wishes to confirm this result to go to the Joint Fiscal Office website which shows the impact of the Governor's proposed elimination of income sensitivity for property taxpayers, and the effect of his proposal to shift retirement costs from the General Fund to the Education Fund. You can find it here: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/JFO /Appropriations.htm

So, while I appreciate theconcerns some have raised about the process, I disagree with those who conclude that this was not about the Governor's proposal, or about increased property taxes. Politically, it is a certainty that despite the major concessions and compromises the legislature made just to end up with the budget it ultimately passed, any further "negotiations" would have inevitably led to something much closer to what the Governor was insisting on - major cuts to human services and other essential programs, and substantial property tax increases. If adopted, those wholesale changes would have undermined any recovery efforts aimed at stimulating the economy, worsened economic conditions for working and lowincome Vermonters, and shredded the social safety net.

As it stands, at least income sensitivity for middle-income property taxpayers was preserved, an income tax cut was passed, and the worst of the cuts proposed by the Governor were thwarted. Rep. Grad and the other Democrats in the legislature deserve our thanks for protecting property taxpayers from the Governor's misguided property tax increase.
CHRISTOPHER J. CURTIS
Northfield