Citizens Bank Foundation Grant Expands Affordable Homeownership Programs
Citizens Bank Foundation Grant Expands Affordable Homeownership Programs[Burlington, VT] More than 13,000 Vermonters would qualify for a home mortgage but need help finding affordable homes and financial assistance. Thanks to a significant Citizens Bank Foundation grant contribution, hundreds of low and moderate income Vermonters will be able to attain affordable homeownership with home buyer education and financial assistance.The Citizens Bank Foundation is contributing $100,000 to the NeighborWorks® Homeownership Centers of Vermont through the Vermont Homeownership Initiative campaign.Jim Keyes, President of Citizens Bank, explained, Citizens Bank is proud to support such a vital program. Buying a home is often a familys largest investment, creating strong community connections and improving financial security. Vermont Homeownership Initiative forms a great public-private partnership to expand homeownership opportunities. In Vermont, Citizens Bank operates as Charter One Bank. The Citizens Bank Foundation’s support focuses on housing, community development and basic human needs.The Vermont Homeownership Initiative is a three-year $1 million campaign among Vermonts five NeighborWorks® Homeownership Centers to increase the number of low and moderate-income homeowners in Vermont by providing financial and homebuyer education.Citizens Bank Foundation is the principal charitable contributions vehicle of CitizensFinancial Group, Citizens Bank and Charter One Bank, N.A. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. A subsidiary of Citizens Financial Group, Inc., Charter One Bank, N.A. is a $49 billion bank operating in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, New York and Vermont.For more information about the Vermont Homeownership Initiative, please contact Liz Curry, campaign coordinator, at 802-660-8056.
Source: Office of the Speaker The House has passed the Renewable Energy and Green Jobs Bill, H.446, to promote in-state renewable energy development and create well-paying green jobs for Vermonters around the state. The bill will encourage community-scale renewable energy developments and expedite the delivery of $21 million in stimulus funds for green energy projects. It is estimated that 15-20 jobs will be created per megawatt of installation every year. The bill passed third reading by a 2-to-1 margin, 88-44. This bill is a great step in the right direction to building a clean, renewable, Vermont-based energy future and to bring well-paying jobs in the emerging green economy to our communities, said House Speaker Shap Smith. On the first day of the session, I said our focus would be on creating new and lasting economic opportunities for Vermonters now and laying the groundwork for a stronger, more vibrant state in the future. This bill accomplishes both of those goals. The House worked hard to craft a thoughtful bill that will deliver on new renewable energy development and green jobs for Vermonters, said House Natural Resources and Energy Chair Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier. Our bill not only talks the talk on renewable energy and green jobs, it walks the walk.The Renewable Energy and Green Jobs Bill will:Encourage community-scale renewable energy development like solar, methane, wind and hydroelectric generation, by giving developers certainty in the return they ll receive on their projects so they will invest in small Vermont projectsCreate 15 20 jobs in engineering, manufacturing, distribution, and installation per megawatt of installation every yearExpedite the delivery of $21 million in stimulus funds for green energy projects through the Clean Energy Development FundAligns state building codes with federal standards so we can receive stimulus funding for weatherizationCreates a pilot program that will allow Vermont s biggest businesses like IBM to invest in their own energy-saving measures
Thomas S. Leavitt, Executive Vice President for Merchants Bank, announced the groundbreaking for the construction of a new office on Route 4 in Rutland. The bank currently has a small drive-up on the site at 92 Woodstock Avenue. The new full-service ADA-compliant branch at the same address will include: four lobby teller stations; two drive-up service lanes; an additional ATM drive-up lane; offices for branch management, commercial lending officers, and customer service. Completion is expected before year-end. As part of this expansion, Leavitt also announced the appointment of Deanna K. Wetherby to the position of Branch President for Woodstock Avenue. We have been active and growing in Rutland since opening our office at Green Mountain Plaza on Route 7 South ten years ago. We have been providing limited service during that time at the Woodstock Avenue. To support our Vermont Matters pledge, we are doubling our capacity to serve Vermont s second largest community. Deanna Wetherby is ideally suited to the new challenge and has a strong history of banking contributions in the local marketplace. She has roots in Rutland and knows this proud region as well as anyone, said Leavitt.In keeping with the Bank s commitment to Vermont, the project employs Vermont contractors. Nimtz Berryhill and Figiel Architect, P.C. (Rutland) is serving as the architectural firm for the facility and Site Designers are Enman Engineering, PC, (Rutland). Connor Contracting, Inc, of Berlin, VT is performing as General Contractor; Fabian Earth Moving, Inc. is conducting the sitework and excavation. Wilk Paving of Rutland will perform paving. Interior construction firms include electrical & lighting by Lamberton Electric, Inc. (Montpelier) and mechanical and plumbing by Vermont Heating and Ventilating, Inc. (Winooski). Exterior Windows are by Windows and Doors by Brownell (Williston) and entrance, glass & glazing by The Glass Connection (Essex Junction). We very much believe the community here is strong enough to support a second full-service branch, stated Wetherby. It’s an ideal location for our many customers who are centered in the neighborhoods around downtown and the eastern section of the city all the way to Killington. This facility will enable us to meet the banking needs of the entire region.” Wetherby was previously employed with Berkshire Bank (formerly Factory Point). She served as Branch Manager for the Court Square (West Street, Rutland) office of Factory Point/Berkshire from the office opening in 2000 until joining Merchants Bank in late 2008 as a member of the Green Mountain Plaza team. Wetherby developed a strong presence in a start-up office, effectively performing all functions typically associated with a Branch President position. Prior to opening the office at Court Square, Wetherby successfully built an in-store branch office at the Price Chopper supermarket in Rutland’s largest shopping complex and held the responsibility for five years. Wetherby is well regarded in the community and has nurtured the development of branch staff to officer appointments during her tenure.Wetherby is a native of Rutland and an alumna of Rutland High School. She has participated in the American Institute of Banking (Performance Training Certificate in Supervision), Northern New England Center for Financial Training (Branch Manager Certificate), Northern New England Center for Financial Training (Customer Service Associate Certificate, Talent and Customer Development and Service Interview Analysis Certification) and Northern New England School of Banking (General Banking Diploma).Deanna Wetherby, Merchants Bank, Branch President, Woodstock Avenue, Rutland Pictured in the groundbreaking, from left to right are: Ralph Nimtz (NFB Architects), Nicole Kesselring (Enman Engineering), Jason Young (Connor Contracting Co.), Steve Connor (Connor Contracting Co.), Tom Leavitt (MB), Deanna Wetherby (MB), Michael Tuttle (MB), Michelle LaMoria (MB), Gary Dean (MB), Keith Eddy (Eddy Enterprises), Ron Fabian (Fabian Earth Moving), and Blair Enman (Enman Engineering).Vermont Matters. Merchants Bank strives to fulfill its role as the state s leading independent community bank through a wide range of initiatives. The bank supports organizations throughout Vermont in addressing essential needs, sustaining community programs, providing small business and job start capital, funding financial literacy education, and delivering enrichment through local sports activities. Merchants Bank was established in 1849 in Burlington. Its continuing mission is to provide Vermonters with a statewide community bank that combines a strong technology platform with a genuine appreciation for local markets. Merchants Bank delivers this commitment through a branch-based system that includes: 34 community bank offices and 42 ATMs throughout Vermont; local branch presidents and personal bankers dedicated to high-quality customer service; free online banking, phone banking, and electronic bill payment services; high-value depositing programs that feature Free Checking for Life®, Cash Rewards Checking, Rewards Checking for Business, business cash management, money market accounts, health savings accounts, certificates of deposit, Flexible CD, IRAs, and overdraft assurance; feature-rich loan programs including mortgages, home equity credit, vehicle loans, personal and small business loans and lines of credit; and merchant card processing. Merchants Bank offers a strong set of commercial and government banking solutions, delivered by experienced banking officers in markets throughout the state; these teams provide customized financing for medium-to-large companies, non-profits, cities, towns and school districts. Please visit www.mbvt.com(link is external) for access to Merchants Bank information, programs and services. Merchants stock is traded on the NASDAQ National Market system under the symbol MBVT. Member FDIC. Equal Housing Lender.Source: Merchants Bank, August 21, 2009.
The Vermont Department of Labor announced today the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for October 2010 was 5.7 percent which is a decrease of one tenth of a percent from the previous month’s reported level of 5.8 percent. Vermont has the fifth lowest rate in the nation. New Hampshire is fourth at 5.4 percent. Vermont also added 700 jobs in one month and 1,900 jobs since October 2009.Compared to a year ago, the October unemployment rate is lower by a full percentage point. Since the start of the calendar year, the Vermont seasonally adjusted unemployment rate has followed a downward trend. In January it was 6.7 percent, followed by February and March at 6.6 percent. Then the next three months each saw declines of two tenths of percent to put the state rate at 6.0 percent in June, where it stayed for three consecutive months until the September announcement of 5.8 percent.‘While based on preliminary numbers, we are seeing positive year over year job growth for the first time since May of 2008,’ said Valerie Rickert, Acting Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Labor. ‘In addition, the state has seen two consecutive months of increased employment and decreased unemployment. The current trend is positive as is evidenced by the full percent decline in unemployment since the beginning of the year,’ Rickert continued.Analysis of Job Changes by IndustryThe preliminary ‘not seasonally adjusted’ jobs numbers for October show an increase of 3,550 jobs when compared to the revised September numbers. This reported over the month change does not include the 450 job increase between the preliminary and the revised September estimates due to the revision process and the inclusion of more sample data. As detailed in the preliminary October data, Total Private reports an increase of 1,100 jobs and Government reports an increase of 2,450 jobs. The bulk of the increase in Government jobs was from State and Local Government Education (+900 and +1,450, respectively). In the private sector, Education and Health Services led all industries with an increase of by 900 jobs. Retail Trade and Financial Activities each showed positive gains of 550 jobs. Lastly, Manufacturing continued its recent strong performance with an increase of 250 jobs.The annual rate of unadjusted job growth was positive for the first time since May of 2008 (+0.1%). This is greater than the revised September estimate by three tenths of a percent. The seasonally adjusted data for October reports an increase of 1,800 jobs from the revised September data. As with the ‘not seasonally adjusted’ data, this over the month change is from the revised September numbers which experienced a positive revision from the preliminary September estimates (+400 jobs). A review of the seasonally adjusted numbers shows Vermont’s Private Industries with a positive job gain of 1,500 jobs. The two industries which most contributed to the net job gains in Total Private Industries were Education and Health Services (+1,000) and Financial Activities (+600). Total Government also increased by 300 jobs. State of Vermont OverviewVermont’s seasonally adjusted unemployment was 5.7 percent in October. The underlying data showed increases to the labor force (+500) and total employment (+700), and a decrease to total unemployment (-300). For comparison purposes, the United States seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for September was 9.6 percent.October unemployment rates for Vermont’s 17 labor market areas ranged from 4.0 percent in Hartford to 7.8 percent in Newport. Local labor market area unemployment rates are not seasonally adjusted. For comparison, the October unadjusted unemployment rate for Vermont was 5.1 percent, which was two tenths of a percentage point lower than the revised September data and down one percent from a year ago. Nationally, regional and state unemployment rates were little changed in October. Nineteen statesand the District of Columbia recorded unemployment rate decreases, 14 states regis-tered rate increases, and 17 states had no rate change, the U.S. Bureau of LaborStatistics reported today. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia postedunemployment rate decreases from a year earlier, 16 states reported increases, and5 states had no change. The national jobless rate was unchanged in October at 9.6percent but was down from 10.1 percent a year earlier.In October, nonfarm payroll employment increased in 41 states and the District ofColumbia, decreased in 6 states, and was unchanged in 3 states. The largest over-the-month increases in employment occurred in Texas (+47,900), New York (+40,600),California (+38,900), Michigan (+19,000), and Arkansas (+17,400). The largest over-the-month percentage increases in employment were in Arkansas (+1.5 percent), NewMexico (+0.8 percent), and Maine and North Dakota (+0.7 percent each). The largestover-the-month employment decreases were in Delaware (-3,000), Missouri (-2,900),and Nevada and Virginia (-2,200 each). The largest over-the-month percentage de-creases in employment occurred in Delaware (-0.7 percent), Nevada (-0.2 percent),and Missouri and Virginia (-0.1 percent each). Over the year, nonfarm payrollemployment increased in 36 states and the District of Columbia and decreased in14 states. The largest over-the-year percentage increase in employment wasreported in the District of Columbia (+2.9 percent), followed by New Hampshire(+2.6 percent), Texas (+1.7 percent), and Minnesota and North Dakota (+1.6 percenteach). The largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment occurred inNevada (-2.4 percent), followed by New Jersey (-1.0 percent), Montana (-0.9 percent),Rhode Island (-0.8 percent), and Missouri (-0.7 percent).Regional Unemployment (Seasonally Adjusted)The West reported the highest regional unemployment rate in October, 10.8 percent,while the Northeast recorded the lowest rate, 8.5 percent. No region experienced astatistically significant over-the-month unemployment rate change, but the Midwestand Northeast registered significant rate changes from a year earlier (-0.8 and -0.5percentage point, respectively). (See table 1.)Among the nine geographic divisions, the Pacific continued to report the highestjobless rate, 11.5 percent in October. The West North Central registered the lowestrate, 7.1 percent, followed by the West South Central, at 7.9 percent. The only div-ision with a statistically significant over-the-month unemployment rate change wasNew England (-0.2 percentage point). Over the year, two divisions posted measurablerate decreases: the East South Central (-1.3 percentage points) and East North Central(-0.9 point). The Mountain experienced the only statistically significant unemploymentrate increase from a year earlier (+0.6 percentage point).State Unemployment (Seasonally Adjusted)Nevada continued to register the highest unemployment rate among the states, 14.2percent in October. The states with the next highest rates were Michigan, 12.8 per-cent, and California, 12.4 percent. North Dakota reported the lowest jobless rate,3.8 percent, followed by South Dakota and Nebraska, at 4.5 and 4.7 percent, respec-tively. In total, 27 states posted jobless rates significantly lower than the U.S.figure of 9.6 percent, 5 states recorded measurably higher rates, and 18 states andthe District of Columbia had rates that were not appreciably different from that ofthe nation. (See tables A and 3.)In October, two states experienced statistically significant unemployment rate changesfrom September: Maine and Massachusetts (-0.3 percentage point each). The remaining 48states and the District of Columbia registered jobless rates that were not measurablydifferent from those of a month earlier, though some had changes that were at least aslarge numerically as the significant changes.Eleven states reported statistically significant over-the-year jobless rate decreasesin October, the largest of which were in Alabama (-1.9 percentage points) and Michigan(-1.6 points). The District of Columbia also posted a significant over-the-yearunemployment rate decrease (-1.7 percentage points). Utah recorded the only significantrate increase from October 2009 (+0.9 percentage point). The remaining 38 states regis-tered unemployment rates that were not appreciably different from those of a year earlier.(See table B.)Nonfarm Payroll Employment (Seasonally Adjusted)Between September and October, 18 states recorded statistically significant changes inemployment. The largest over-the-month statistically significant job gains occurred inTexas (+47,900), New York (+40,600), and California (+38,900). The only over-the-monthstatistically significant job loss occurred in Delaware (-3,000). (See tables C and 5.)Over the year, 12 states and the District of Columbia reported statistically signif-icant employment increases, while one state experienced a statistically significantdecline in employment. The largest statistically significant over-the-year employmentincreases were posted in Texas (+172,800), Pennsylvania (+48,800), and Minnesota(+42,000). The only statistically significant over-the-year job loss occurred in NewJersey (-37,100). (See table D.)_____________The Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment news release for October isscheduled to be released on Tuesday, December 7, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. (EST). TheRegional and State Employment and Unemployment news release for November is scheduledto be released on Friday, December 17, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. (EST). Table A. States with unemployment rates significantly differ-ent from that of the U.S., October 2010, seasonally adjusted————————————————————– State | Rate(p)————————————————————–United States (1) ……………….| 9.6 |Alaska …………………………| 7.9Arkansas ……………………….| 7.8California ……………………..| 12.4Colorado ……………………….| 8.4Delaware ……………………….| 8.3Florida ………………………..| 11.9Hawaii …………………………| 6.4Iowa …………………………..| 6.7Kansas …………………………| 6.7Louisiana ………………………| 8.1 |Maine ………………………….| 7.4Maryland ……………………….| 7.4Massachusetts …………………..| 8.1Michigan ……………………….| 12.8Minnesota ………………………| 7.1Montana ………………………..| 7.3Nebraska ……………………….| 4.7Nevada …………………………| 14.2New Hampshire …………………..| 5.4New Mexico ……………………..| 8.4 |New York ……………………….| 8.3North Dakota ……………………| 3.8Oklahoma ……………………….| 6.9Pennsylvania ……………………| 8.8Rhode Island ……………………| 11.4South Dakota ……………………| 4.5Texas ………………………….| 8.1Utah …………………………..| 7.6Vermont ………………………..| 5.7Virginia ……………………….| 6.8Wisconsin ………………………| 7.8Wyoming ………………………..| 6.7————————————————————– 1 Data are not preliminary. p = preliminary.Table B. States with statistically significant unemployment rate changesfrom October 2009 to October 2010, seasonally adjusted————————————————————————- | Rate | |———–|———–| Over-the-year State | October | October | rate change(p) | 2009 | 2010(p) |————————————————————————-Alabama ……………………| 10.8 | 8.9 | -1.9District of Columbia ………..| 11.4 | 9.7 | -1.7Illinois …………………..| 10.9 | 9.8 | -1.1Michigan …………………..| 14.4 | 12.8 | -1.6New Hampshire ………………| 6.8 | 5.4 | -1.4New York …………………..| 8.9 | 8.3 | -.6North Carolina ……………..| 10.9 | 9.6 | -1.3North Dakota ……………….| 4.3 | 3.8 | -.5South Carolina ……………..| 12.2 | 10.7 | -1.5Tennessee ………………….| 10.8 | 9.4 | -1.4 | | |Utah ………………………| 6.7 | 7.6 | .9Vermont ……………………| 6.7 | 5.7 | -1.0Wisconsin ………………….| 8.7 | 7.8 | -.9————————————————————————- p = preliminary.Table C. States with statistically significant employment changes fromSeptember 2010 to October 2010, seasonally adjusted————————————————————————– | September | October | Over-the-month State | 2010 | 2010(p) | change(p)————————————————————————–Arizona…………………..| 2,398,600 | 2,413,100 | 14,500Arkansas………………….| 1,155,400 | 1,172,800 | 17,400California………………..| 13,818,600 | 13,857,500 | 38,900Delaware………………….| 416,000 | 413,000 | -3,000Hawaii……………………| 588,100 | 591,700 | 3,600Iowa……………………..| 1,471,100 | 1,479,200 | 8,100Maine…………………….| 588,300 | 592,500 | 4,200Massachusetts……………..| 3,175,500 | 3,185,500 | 10,000Michigan………………….| 3,821,900 | 3,840,900 | 19,000Minnesota…………………| 2,657,500 | 2,671,600 | 14,100 | | |New Mexico………………..| 804,500 | 810,800 | 6,300New York………………….| 8,479,000 | 8,519,600 | 40,600North Dakota………………| 370,300 | 372,800 | 2,500Oregon……………………| 1,594,700 | 1,602,300 | 7,600Pennsylvania………………| 5,602,200 | 5,618,100 | 15,900Tennessee…………………| 2,609,800 | 2,618,500 | 8,700Texas…………………….| 10,353,300 | 10,401,200 | 47,900Vermont…………………..| 294,200 | 296,000 | 1,800————————————————————————– p = preliminary.Table D. States with statistically significant employment changes fromOctober 2009 to October 2010, seasonally adjusted————————————————————————– | October | October | Over-the-year State | 2009 | 2010(p) | change(p)————————————————————————–Arizona…………………..| 2,388,900 | 2,413,100 | 24,200Arkansas………………….| 1,157,700 | 1,172,800 | 15,100District of Columbia……….| 703,600 | 724,300 | 20,700Maryland………………….| 2,503,000 | 2,531,400 | 28,400Massachusetts……………..| 3,148,200 | 3,185,500 | 37,300Minnesota…………………| 2,629,600 | 2,671,600 | 42,000New Hampshire……………..| 621,300 | 637,500 | 16,200New Jersey………………..| 3,867,600 | 3,830,500 | -37,100North Dakota………………| 367,000 | 372,800 | 5,800Oklahoma………………….| 1,524,700 | 1,543,300 | 18,600 | | |Pennsylvania………………| 5,569,300 | 5,618,100 | 48,800Tennessee…………………| 2,596,300 | 2,618,500 | 22,200Texas…………………….| 10,228,400 | 10,401,200 | 172,800Virginia………………….| 3,603,800 | 3,636,800 | 33,000————————————————————————– p = preliminary.Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 11.23.2010
By TOM PELHAM. Vermonters need to see beyond Washington’s double talk and understand the budget fight is not about compromise, but about holding partisan ground gained over the last decade. The Republicans don’t favor taxes and with President Bush taking the lead, income taxes dropped from 9.7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2000 to 6.2% in 2010. Total federal revenues dropped from 20.6% of GDP to 14.9%. In the other direction, Democrats favor expanded government and as a percent of GDP, federal spending grew from 18.5% of GDP in 2000 to 23.8% in 2010. Spending has increased across the board with discretionary spending up from 6.3% of GDP in 2000 to 9.3% in 2010 and ‘mandatory’ spending up from 10.5% to 14.4%. The result is a federal budget that went from surplus to deficit. In 2000, the surplus was $86.4 billion. In 2011, the year ended with a $1.55 trillion deficit and the federal debt grew to a very worrisome $14.3 trillion. The International Monetary Fund profiles the United States debt now at 99.5% of GDP. During the Carter years it was less than 40% and Bill Clinton left office with it at 57%. For comparison, Germany’s is now at 80.1%, the United Kingdom at 83%, Italy at 120.3% and Greece at 152.3%. This marriage of convenience between Republicans and Democrats survived until now, with both sides able to satisfy their political base with tax cuts and higher spending. Going forward though, if these fiscally irreconcilable positions are not abandoned, the national welfare will be the collateral damage. Both sides hold shaded self-serving positions. Democrats look back at the surpluses in the Clinton years and blame the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’, code words for tax breaks given the wealthy. But the facts are the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ were for everybody, not just the wealthy. The U.S. Treasury values the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ at $3.6 trillion over the next decade with only $700 billion, or 19%, going to ‘the wealthy’ and $2.9 trillion going to the rest of us. In 2000, the effective federal income tax rate on the bottom 50% of filers was 4.6%. In 2008, the last year for which numbers are available, their effective rate was down to 2.59%. With these lower rates, 46.9% of all federal income tax filers in 2009 paid no federal income tax. Comparatively, for the top 5% of filers, the effective rate dropped from 24.4% to 20.7% by 2008. Democrats argue only to reverse the tax cuts given the wealthy but are silent about the cuts given the rest of us and are silent as well about how to balance the budget if the ‘Bush Tax Cuts’ for the less than ‘wealthy’ remain in place. It’s misleading for Democrats to hang their hat on the surpluses of the Clinton years when Clinton’s budget surpluses rested on significantly higher tax revenues from low and middle income filers. Further, Democrats want to close corporate tax breaks with oil companies and jet owners as their whipping posts. Yet, an analysis by the joint congressional staff for the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee ( found here http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3718(link is external) ) reveals the estimate of all corporate tax breaks in 2012 amounts to slightly over $94 billion, with energy related tax breaks amounting to $5.4 billion. While I won’t argue that profitable oil companies deserve tax breaks, it’s impossible to argue their elimination will make a meaningful dent in the $1.4 trillion annual deficit. If the entirety of corporate tax breaks cited in the analysis including affordable housing, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, ethanol, tax free bonds, corporate charitable contributions, etc. were eliminated for 2012, the federal deficit would be reduced by less than $100 billion, remaining at $1.3 trillion. Republicans take equally ridiculous positions. Unless Republicans are willing to reduce federal spending to match revenues at the current $14.9% of GDP, their rock solid opposition to tax increases, whether through raising tax rates or eliminating tax breaks, is both fatuous and dangerous. For this national crisis to be resolved, the partisan shouting and slight-of-hand economics must stop. Our elected leaders need to embrace humility, as the current crisis is a product of their neglect. The fiscal gulf we now face is extreme, with federal revenues at just under 15% and federal spending at almost 24% of GDP. The national debt can only be lowered with federal budget surpluses. The hard work of cutting budgets and raising taxes on all of us over the coming months and years is necessary to reclaim the fiscal balance existing in the Clinton years, when revenues were at 20% of GDP and spending at just over 18%. Tom Pelham was the Vermont’s Finance Commissioner in the Dean Administration and Tax Commissioner in the Douglas Administration