More good advice on nikon d3100 compatible lenses please

Ok, I've already gotten great advice on getting an appropriate telephoto lens for my nikon d3100.many people have nixed my idea of adding a x2 teleconverter.apparently image quality and autofocus would suffer, so I might go for a 55-300 lens.
Now, my biggest problem is macro… And a not so large budget left! Now, my question is… How important is VR on the macro? I can't be a slave to the tripod. Is this Nikkor 85mm f/3.5 macro the cheapest compatible macro with VR and autofocus? Can someone suggest a less expensive alternative with comparable characteristics? Basically I'm looking for great crisp image quality, autofocus if possible, and the ability to use it hand-held for close-ups of details in nature (e.g., water drops on a leaf, small insect, detail of a flower, etc.) Thanks in advance for your advice.

Personally I don't find VR all that important on macro. My experience is that, when hand holding, you're more likely to make slight movements in the distance to the insect. VR can't compensate that. Additionally, you get the nicest macros of insects and flowers if it's sunny and then you tend to have enough light to go for higher shutter speeds anyway.

Thom Hogan, one of my favorite Nikon bloggers, writes this:

Oh, you want to know about that caveat, do you? The exact words in the Nikon manual say "As the reproduction ratio increases from 1/30x [sic], the effects of vibration reduction gradually decrease." In other literature, Nikon has flat out said to turn off VR for macro use. What's the real answer? The manual is correct, basically. The closer you focus, the less VR has an impact on the final image. At 1:1 (the closest focus distance), it may not impart any benefit (it didn't seem to in the testing conditions I could create).So do you turn VR off when working in macro? If you're pressed up towards the limits of focus, I'd say yes--you're wasting battery life and potentially making it more difficult to hit a focus point. But if you're focused out beyond two or three feet (~.7m+), it probably makes sense to leave it on, as you'll get some benefit (though not the four stops Nikon claims for the system unless you're focusing far further out into the scene).
(from http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm)

Additionally autofocus. Autofocus works to a certain extent. I think about 3/4 of all my macro shots are done with manual focus. In fact, a lot of the times I set my lens to the shortest focal distance and fine tune the focussing by moving closer to the subject. That's for insects. On flowers autofocus does have some benefits.

Of course when you use your macro lens as a general purpose short tele then VR can be useful and autofocus would be very nice to have. There's an alternative in the http://www.bhphotovideo.com/..._8_Di.html which is a bit cheaper than the nikon. IT's motorized (earlier versions were not!) but does not offer VR.

Not having VR isn't the end of the world, it just means that the old rule of thumb of focal length=shutter speed comes back into play. The tamron would need 1/100 or 1/125 if shot handheld to eliminate your own camera shake.

Yes, the 85mm f/3.5 is indeed the cheapest macro lens with both autofocus and VR. Nothing else is cheaper, NOTHING!

But the fact is, all serious macro work is done on a tripod, meaning both autofocus and VR are not very important. In fact, manual is often preferred as it allows for more accurate and precise focusing at macro distances. If you can go without af/vr, the sigma 50mm f/2.8 is the cheapest, or you may want to go searching for second-hand macro lenses which may sell even less.