Vermont’s September Revenue Figures Exceed Target for the Month

first_imgVermont’s September Revenue Figures – General Fund, Transportation Fund and Education Fund – Exceed Target for the MonthMontpelier, VT (October 10, 2008) – Secretary of Administration Neale F. Lunderville has released General Fund revenue results for themonth of September, the third month of Fiscal Year 2009. General Fund revenues totaled $127.44million for September 2008, +$13.84 million or +12.19% above the $113.60 million consensusrevenue forecast for the month. Cumulatively, General Fund revenues year to date were $294.03million or +12.97 million (+4.61%) above the consensus revenue forecast for Fiscal Year 2009.However, there are certain factors that impact the availability of this apparent above target result.It is important to note that the September revenue includes a legal settlement of $6.03 million. At thetime the consensus revenue forecast was approved in July 2008, the outcome of the legal action wasunknown. Consequently, no amount was included in the consensus forecast for the potentialsettlement; however, an estimated $5.57 million was anticipated and already earmarked for use. Ofthe $6.03 million, $2.3 million has been transferred to Teachers’ Retirement and the remaining $3.73million was included in the August 2008 General Fund Rescission, reducing the appropriationreductions necessary to balance the FY 2009 budget. This means that only $0.46 million of thesettlement is in excess of what was anticipated, not the entire $6.03 million.Without the portion of the settlement that was anticipated, General Fund revenue results for themonth of September were +$8.28 million or +7.29% above the $113.60 million consensus revenueforecast for the month. Cumulatively, adjusted General Fund revenues year to date were +$7.40 million (+2.63%) above the consensus revenue forecast for Fiscal Year 2009. However, giventhe instability in the national economy, we do not expect revenues to exceed targets for theremainder of the fiscal year.The monthly targets reflect the most recent Fiscal Year 2009 consensus revenue forecast that wasagreed to by the Emergency Board on July 29, 2008. The state’s consensus revenue forecast isnormally updated two times per year in January and July. However, with the downturn in thenational economy, the Emergency Board has scheduled an interim review of the consensus revenueforecast for November 18, 2008.Personal Income Tax receipts are the largest single state revenue source, and are reported Net ofPersonal Income Tax refunds. Personal Income Tax receipts for September were $67.33 million,+$4.50 million or +7.16% above the monthly target. Corporate Income tax receipts for Septemberwere $12.28 million, +$1.18 million or +10.65% above the target for the month. Both the PersonalIncome Tax and Corporate Income Tax receipts were significantly above target in the category ofestimated income tax payments. For those individual and corporate tax payers required to payestimated tax payments in lieu of withholding tax, those payments are generally paid at a minimumof 90% of their prior year tax amount. In light of national economic turbulence, it is veryprobable that a significant portion of these estimated payments will need to be refunded whenthe 2008 tax returns are filed. In other words, we do not believe that the elevated revenues seenin September will continue in future months.Sales & Use Tax and Rooms & Meals Tax were both above target for the month. Sales and Use Taxwas +$0.51 million (+2.95%) above the target for September of $17.30 million, while Rooms &Meals was +$0.71 million (+6.00%) above the monthly target of $11.82 million. The remaining taxcomponent results for the month were: Insurance Premium, $2.14 million (+85.72%);Inheritance/Estate Tax, $0.17 million (-88.00%); Real Property Transfer Tax $0.99 million(+1.53%); and Other, $14.19 million (+103.58%). Included in the Other category was $6.03 millionin Bank Franchise tax – the settlement dollars referred to earlier in this press release. Year to dateresults for these components were: Insurance Premium, $8.17 million (+2.97%); Inheritance/EstateTax, $1.82 million (-53.24%); Real Property Transfer Tax $3.06 million (+0.07%); and Other,$27.68 million (+48.86%), inclusive of the $6.03 million settlement.Transportation FundSecretary Lunderville also reported on the results for the non-dedicated Transportation Fund revenue.Transportation Fund revenue was $19.07 million, which was +$0.22 million, or +1.18%, above themonthly target for September. Cumulatively, Transportation Fund revenues year to date of $53.38million were -$1.71 million or -3.11% below the consensus revenue forecast for Fiscal Year 2009.For the month of September, Gasoline Tax revenue was slightly above target; actual revenues fromthe Gasoline Tax were +$0.32 million (+5.66%) above the consensus revenue estimate of $5.65million. The Other Fees of $1.87 was also above the target by +$0.38 (+25.20%). The Diesel Tax,Motor Vehicle Purchase & Use Tax, and Motor Vehicle Fees were all below their monthly targets;Diesel Tax, $1.28 million or -5.44% below the monthly target; Motor Vehicle Purchase & Use Tax,$4.69 million or -5.67% below the monthly target; and Motor Vehicle Fees, $5.27 million or -2.20%below the monthly target.Education FundSecretary Lunderville released revenue results for the “the non-Property Tax” Education Fundrevenues (which constitute approximately 12% of the total Education Fund receipts). The EducationFund receipts totaled $13.27 million for the month of September, or $0.18 million (+1.35%) abovethe $13.09 million consensus revenue target for the month. Cumulatively, Education Fund revenuesyear to date were $37.82 million or -$1.05 million (-2.70%) below the consensus revenue forecast forFiscal Year 2009.The portion of the Education Fund derived from the Motor Vehicle Purchase & Use Tax was belowexpectations for the month of September, as was the Lottery Transfer. The Education Fund portionof the Sales & Use Tax was above target for September.Specifically, the Education Fund components were: Sales and Use Tax, $8.90 million or +2.95%above target; Motor Vehicle Purchase & Use, $2.35 million or -5.67% below target; LotteryTransfer, $1.89 million or -2.16% below target; and Education Fund Interest $0.13 million or+454.47% above the monthly target.ConclusionSecretary Lunderville cautioned that, “The continued volatility in the national economy is a seriousconcern. We need to be very cautious because of the uncertainty of national markets and theexpectation that a significant amount of the Estimated Income Tax payments received to date in theGeneral Fund will likely need to be refunded. We will continue to monitor future revenues veryclosely and review the situation again after the revenue forecast is revised in November.”Note: Revenue Estimates are fiscal year total estimates.Prepared by Department of Finance & ManagementDate: October 02, 2008last_img read more

Why California’s Three-Parent Law Was Inevitable

first_imgPublic Discourse – Jennifer Roback Morse 10 Sep 2012A California bill allowing children to have three legal parents will not help children, but instead will unnecessarily complicate their lives. The supposed need for California’s SB 1476 flowed directly from the drive to normalize same sex parenting and recognize same sex unions.Can a child have three parents? If California State Senator Mark Leno has his way, children in California will be able to have three legal parents. Before we dismiss SB 1476 as another example of California Weird, we had best look into it more closely. After all, the bill has passed both houses of the California Assembly and is awaiting Governor Brown’s signature or veto.I believe this development was inevitable, more inevitable in fact than the much-vaunted inevitability of gay marriage. Once we started trying to normalize parenting by same-sex couples and redefine marriage to remove the dual-gender requirement, we had to end up with triple-parenting.A deeper look at the whole picture surrounding SB 1476 reveals that not only should the three-parent law fail, same-sex “marriage” should fail as well. As we will see, embedded in this bill is an appalling power-grab by the state, and a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts by the bill’s authors.Why Normalizing Same-Sex Parenting Inevitably Led to Triple-Parenting Let us state an obvious fact: a same-sex couple cannot have a child unless someone gives them one, or part of one, namely either an egg or a sperm. If two women, for instance, decide they want to have a baby, they must still involve a man in the process. They can use some form of artificial reproductive technology with sperm from a man who is unknown to them. Or, they can find an accommodating friend to have sex with one of them, or to donate his sperm.The question is this: how is the same-sex couple going to manage the relationship with this third party? In some cases, the women do not want any relationship with the father. Our government will give them this. Through the legal institution of anonymous sperm donation, the government agrees perpetually to separate a mother and a father from a legal relationship with each other.If all same-sex couples were completely and permanently committed to ensuring that their child would never have a relationship with his or her other biological parent, then there would be no particular drive for same-sex parenting to lead to triple-parenting. But this is obviously a very strong condition. Some female couples will want their children to have an ongoing relationship with their father. Some fathers will want a relationship with their children. Hence, we can see that through situations such as these, normalizing same-sex parenting creates momentum for triple-parenting.Some of these three-party relationships will be agreeable and cooperative and amicable. But again, it is obviously a very big presumption to suppose that every such relationship will be completely harmonious for a lifetime. Only some known donor fathers will be fathers on the exact terms desired by the two women. Other fathers will desire something different, either more or less involvement than the women want. We cannot count on private agreements among the parties to solve all problems and manage all disputes. A subset of these cases is going to end up being settled by the family courts. Therefore, not only does same-sex parenting create an impetus to triple-parenting, it creates an impetus for state involvement in the ongoing management of these complex relationships.It all sounds very nice and agreeable to allow people to make any parenting agreements they want on the front end of their relationships. But when a relationship breaks down, the long arm of the law will end up involved in the life of the family, on the back end, to resolve disputes. We are replacing the natural pre-political concept of biological parenthood with an artificial, government-created concept of parenthood that is entirely socially constructed. Instead of the government simply recognizing and recording the pre-political reality of biological parenthood, we are giving agents of the state the authority to construct parenthood, all in the best interests of the child, of course.http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/09/6197/last_img read more