Hidden amidst the stilted language of government budget-cutters in Montpelier Tuesday, along with the moaning and groaning—some of it legitimate—from people who will suffer from those cuts was some real news. But you won’t see it in the morning papers or on the evening TV shows.

Here it is: This liberal state—sometimes called the most leftward in all the land—is governed by two center-right parties.

This isn’t necessarily undesirable; center-right policies have their claim to wisdom.

But it’s a surprise, considering Vermont’s reputation as a hotbed of liberalism, sometimes even “the Peoples Republic of Vermont,” in semi-jest from both left and right.

In a real “peoples republic” (which does not mean China) the government does not raise the price of college for middle-income students or reduce the quality of mental health services for the poor without at least looking into the possibility of selectively raising taxes or fees.

Again, there is no suggestion here that the budget cuts are bad policy. Many of them are quite reasonable, even for liberals. Taken as a whole, however, they are not liberal policy. Not even center-left policy.

Raising this interesting question: What happened to the institution that supposedly supports and pursues center-left policies? You may have heard of it, especially because its adherents hold four of the six statewide offices and dominate the Legislature. Not only that, but its presidential candidate whumped his opponent but good in Vermont just a few weeks ago.

Yup, it’s the Democratic Party. The party of FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ, and HHH. Not one of whom would have stood by and allowed cuts in legal assistance for the poor, or weaker enforcement of human rights violations, or spending less on services for sick children without saying—no, without proclaiming—‘Wait a minute! There must be some way we can find some money here’

That Democratic Party lives, just not here. We know that because just next door, in New York, Gov. David Patterson is an actual Democrat with budget problems as severe as Vermont’s, with a $15 billion deficit looming for next year. Like Vermont’s Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, Patterson has proposed severe budget cuts. But he would deal with more than 25 percent of his projected shortfall with $4 billion worth of tax and fee increases.

Whether Vermont should follow that course is a subject over which reasonable people may differ. But if any of those reasonable people were Democrats, you’d think that a few of them would be taking that side of the debate.

Debate, however, seems to be something Vermont Democrats avoid, even when most of the evidence is on their side, or would be if they had a side.

For instance, in explaining why no tax hikes should be considered, Neale F. Lunderville, Douglas’s Secretary of Administration, asserted that “economists widely agree that tax increase during challenging economic times serve only to slow recovery.”

Well, sort of. What economists more “widely agree” on is that while tax increases are the second worse thing to do in a downturn, they are not as bad as cutting the budget and laying people off .

Just as Vermont is doing, without a peep from a leading Democrat.

There are economists who disagree with the general consensus, and who think raising taxes is worse than cutting spending. They could be right. But they are not Democrats. They are the most conservative Republicans. Even the center-right economists tend to agree with Democrats on this matter.

Among Democrats, only former State Rep. Paul Cillo, now head of Public Assets Institute, the liberal think tank he started after he left the Legislature, has dared to suggest that the state consider selective tax increases on upper-income earners. So have two writers on the Progressive Party’s “Prog Blog,” Burlington Mayor Bib Kiss and public policy analyst Doug Hoffer. But they aren’t Democrats.

(Well, OK, Treasurer Jeb Spaulding has proposed higher fuel taxes to finance road and bridge repairs. But that’s more of a user fee than a tax).

It’s true that on social issues Vermont effectively has two center-left parties, with few leading Republicans spending much time worrying about abortions or embryonic stem cell research or trying to roll back the state’s Civil Unions law. But when it comes to the fundamentals of governing—the role of the state in guiding the economy and providing basic social services, Vermont’s leading Democrats have converted; they are now Republicans.

Perhaps they are just being prudent. Any suggestion of tax hikes is politically risky. But nobody has taken a poll to see whether most Vermonters would consider some selective revenue hikes or borrowing to soften the impact of budget cuts. They accepted that path when Republican Gov. Richard Snelling chose it in 1991.

Even with the political risk, the behavior of the state’s Democrats leaves us with this question: If the Democratic Party will not stand up for poor, sick children, what’s the point of having a Democratic Party?—Jon Margolis