Blog

Tax The Wealthy; Not The Ratepayers

Submitted by Martha Abbott on Mon, 2012-05-14 09:43

Ten years ago, the Vermont Public Service Board approved a bailout of CVPS by its ratepayers.  It was in the best interests of the ratepayers to have their publicly regulated monopoly survive.  In the bailout agreement, the PSB permitted 135,000 Vermont households to be “taxed” to the tune of $17 million with a requirement that the ratepayers would be paid back BEFORE any sale of the company took place.  At the time, no one wanted to buy it.

Now on its feet again, and an attractive financial investment, two Canadian companies are interested in buying CVPS.  The VT Public Service Department has proposed that Gaz Metro be allowed to buy CVPS without paying back the rate payers. The proposed terms would allow the $17 million (now $21 million with inflation) to be put into weatherization and energy efficiency programs for the benefit of all Gaz Metro customers.

This is simply not fair.  Although I am a big fan of weatherization programs and renewable energy projects, having proposed those programs in legislation myself, this is the wrong way to go about it. The PSB’s job is to protect the ratepayers who are in a monopoly market.  They can not turn to any other entity for electric service.  This should not be a partisan issue.  It is simply about fairness and living up to our commitments.

Energy efficiency and weatherization programs should be funded by a tax on those who are not paying their fair share, not by the ratepayers who were promised that they would be repaid.

The governor is worried that 3 or 4 millionaires might move out of state if we were to raise their taxes.  He should be more worried that 135,000 families, potentially containing 200,000 – 250,000 Vermont voters might move to another option at the ballot box.

We Need to Invest in the Right Future

Submitted by Rep. Sarah Edwards on Mon, 2012-05-07 22:55

This Mother’s Day, I am thinking about mothers and families all over our country. The past few years have not been easy. In Vermont, families continue to struggle to make ends meet here. In Washington, DC Congress is trying to put together a budget for next year. I’m watching this process closely because our state counts on funding from the federal government to implement crucial programs. The budget process will affect each and every one of my constituents.

The budget passed by House Republicans will slash programs used disproportionately by women and families. In addition to the Medicare and Medicaid cuts you may have heard about, it cuts funding for programs like food stamps, childcare, Head Start, job training, Pell Grants, and housing and energy assistance. Meanwhile their budget allows defense spending to continue to increase.

Each year, Congress appropriates more than half of discretionary spending to the Department of Defense. Even without deficit reduction pressure, this overspending takes dollars away from needed domestic priorities that strengthen our economy and ensure that America can compete in the world marketplace.
 
In the past decade we have spent billions on war. Afghanistan is now the longest war in our nation’s history, and we spent nine years in Iraq. Whether measured merely in direct financial cost, or in the broader and more profound cost of lives lost and damaged, we cannot afford to be a nation perpetually at war.

Some supporters of the Pentagon and their contractors tout money to the Pentagon as a jobs program. Sensible national security jobs make sense, and no member of Congress can ignore the effect of policy decisions on jobs. Nonetheless, economists have shown that federal investments in non-military sectors--like education, healthcare and clean energy--create more jobs than military spending. It makes sense to invest federal dollars in sectors that will create productive jobs that will help our economy grow for years to come.

We can make sensible reductions to Pentagon spending and invest in programs that will help build a vibrant economy for generations to come. This Mother’s Day, let’s honor hard-working women around the nation by calling on Congress to pass a budget that supports women and families and puts us back on the path to a sustainable economic recovery.

This also appeared in the May 5 edition of the Brattleboro Reformer.

Fair Share? Not So Much

Submitted by Rep. Chris Pearson on Fri, 2012-05-04 07:48

When you form a union not everyone has to join. But when a contract is agreed to everyone is covered regardless of whether or not they join the union. And, whether they pay union dues.

Plus, if a non union member has a grievance the union has their back. Which is why unions like the idea of requiring some kind of fee from even the non-union members they have to work for. This fee is called an "agency fee" or the "fair share fee" as it's called these days in the legislature.

When the senate passed an education bill Sen. Tim Ashe (D/P - Chittenden) attached the fair share language that had been discussed on and off all year.

We are about to debate this bill on the floor. Our only option is to agree otherwise the underlying bill will die. There simply isn't time to change it and send it back to the senate. Trick is, House Democrats don't have the votes to pass the fair share provision. That's right, over a third of the House democrats are a knee-jerk no vote on a basic labor principle of fairness.

I believe they'll get the votes after some arm twisting but it's a sorry state of affairs if we can't pass a basic labor principle like a fair share provision for municipal and school employees. Sad.

Vermont Surrendering to Monsanto

Submitted by Rep. Susan Davis on Sun, 2012-04-22 09:51

A Story by Will Allen and Ronnie Cummins at alternet on April 19, 2012 asks the question, "Is Vermont's Governor surrendering to Monsanto?" The story goes on the say, "Vermont's governor has 2 weeks to stand with 90 percent of his constituents who favor labeling genetically engineered foods, or cave to Monsanto."

In the event that our Governor caves, former Progressive Legislator and farmer David Zuckerman, should be waiting in the wings and announce his bid for Governor.

What do you think?

Proposed Bylaws Changes

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Fri, 2012-04-20 00:00

Our February State Committee meeting was focused largely on a discussion about which candidates our party can endorse or nominate. The general sense coming out of that meeting was that as a party we are figuring out how to go forward on a case by case basis, and that our bylaws should be cleaned up to reflect our current practices over the past two election cycles.The Coordinating Committee has proposed several amendments to our bylaws. The current proposal (which will be brought forward for a vote at our May 12 State Committee meeting) is available here. The changes proposed would give more power to party committees to endorse candidates, and would likely broaden our endorsement of candidates supporting our issues.Specifically, the changes:

  • State that the CoCo is responsible for allocating party resources to endorsed candidates (section 14);
  • Require a quorum of 50% for endorsement decisions (section 19);
  • Removes the restrictions around committee nominations, a process defined in state statute (section 26); and
  • Gives authority to endorse candidates to county and state committees, with guidance rather than restrictions on endorsements (section 26).

Bylaws changes are voted on by State Committee members, but we would appreciate feedback from any and all. My hope is that the discussion continues here and at the May meeting, and that our bylaws are strengthened to put us in the best possible position for the elections in 2012, and for another thirty years after.

Tracking Teens

Submitted by Rep. Susan Davis on Wed, 2012-03-07 12:23

Auto insurer AAA is offering a device called "AAA-OnBoard" to parents so they can follow their teenagers driving. AAA customers could potentially be eligible for discounts on their insurance by installing the device into their vehicles being driven by a teenager. Some teenagers feel this is a bad idea and and that it is an invasion of privacy. Is this an invasion of privacy under the guise of safety? What do you think?

Keeping Vermont Kids in Vermont Universities

Submitted by Chester Kasnowski on Mon, 2012-02-27 11:51

Progressives support education as a major principle, perhaps we should work to update the antiquated pricing policies of UVM and other state supported colleges.
 
Harvard offers a financial aid package for middle and lower income youth. If the parents earn less than $60,000 a year, a high scoring youth can get into Harvard FREE. And for families in the $120,000 to $180,000 income range, the tuition will be no more than 10% of the annual income. Yale, Pomona, Swartmore, Stanford and other schools have similar financial aid packages for middle income families. These schools have big endowments and they are in competition for the best and the brightest students.
 
The result is that brilliant Vermont university-bound youths would not miss the idea that they can attend a high prestige university for less than the cost of attending UVM.  The in-state tuition at UVM is about $15,000. Add room and board expenses, then the total costs near $24,000. That is a hard number for Vermont families making $60,000 a year and imagine if you have two kids at college age. It’s impossible.
 
I suggest we push for modern financial aid packages in Vermont. UVM should establish a policy that for families earning less than $70,000 a year, a student of high merit pays no tuition. For kids that were not valedictorians or in the top ten of their high school graduating class, perhaps the families should pay 5% of the annual income up to $120,000. After $120k to $180k, the 10% tuition applies.
 
This is a complex issue with many concerns to be addressed. But the middle and lower income families are being squeezed out of higher education by every increasing tuitions and stagnant wage increases. And Vermont students are not going to succeed in a modern world and live a progressive life without higher education.  The best and the brightest will go someplace else besides Vermont. Something like this suggestion needs to happen, soon.

Regulation of Propane Seller Practice should go further

Submitted by Chester Kasnowski on Mon, 2012-02-13 12:08

The house-passed bill 185 is a good start, but I think additional clarity and refined regulations would serve the people of Vermont better.  The propane industry in Vermont is a free-for-all.

Variable pricing, minimal repair and maintenance work, a lack of safety procedures and administrative inconsistency seems to be the practice of most Vermont suppliers of propane.

First and foremost, I would suggest that H-185 should include a requirement that Propane Suppliers publish the price or price schedules.

In addition, H-185 should demand that:

  • If you use less propane (by conserving energy) the price should be lower, not higher as is the current practice.
  • An annual usage chart should be required and sent to each customer.
  • There should be an annual safety check for leaks and pressure on all gas equipment customers use.
  • There might also be a mandate that customers be offered insurance for emergency service and repair.
  • Delivery schedules should be clearly stated to the customer.
  • Payment plans should be easily accessible based on a year's usage.

We regulate the electric companies with some of the items I described above. Propane is just as important a utility for many Vermonters; its practice should be fair and clear to all.

The Four Year Term for Governor

Submitted by Martha Abbott on Mon, 2012-02-06 09:50

This is an idea that keeps surfacing in the guise of “good government”.  The people who keep bringing it up never call it “less democracy” which is what it is.

Currently Phil Scott is bringing it up.  A couple of years ago the Snelling Center was pushing it and they collected a lot of money from “Funding Partners” to help them raise the profile of the discussion.  But a look at their list of funding partners should raise the eyebrows of progressives everywhere.  A few on the list were:  Blue Cross/Blue Shield; CVPS; Champlain Oil Co; Entergy; Fletcher Allen Health Care; GBIC; Green Mountain Power; National Life; VELCO; Vermont Gas; Vermont Mutual Insurance and Vermont State Chamber of Commerce.  It’s sort of the  “who’s who” of special interests in Vermont.

This proposal has been rejected by the Legislature and by the people of Vermont every 10 years since 1961.  Now it is being brought up every four years (a shorter window for constitutional amendments).  And it is not just Governor for whom a doubling of their term is proposed, but all the statewide offices (Attorney General, Auditor, etc).

And then the question is:  “What do you do about the imbalance of power between the Governor and the Legislature?  Would we need to make the legislative terms 4 year terms, too?  

The main arguments are 1) “Every other state does it except NH”,  and 2) “If the Governor is going to take political risks with policies, he or she needs to be able to take them early in his/her term and have time to recover before running for re election.”

As for the complexity of modern life, do the Governors of New York and  California need even LONGER terms, because their states are like whole countries in terms of size?

In my experience, the need to be insulated from the voters usually means that the special interests are getting something that is not in the interests of the average voter and the politicians need time to regroup.

If voters have less opportunity to engage, they will engage less.

Vermont has a much higher rate of voter turnout than the national average (64.4 in Vermont in 2000 vs 51.3 in the US in 2000).  Will we lose that enthusiasm if we have fewer elections?  Will people feel like their leaders are even more out of touch than now?

What we NEED is serious campaign finance reform and public funding of elections as well as reform of the use of the public airwaves so that candidates have time to talk about the real issues that affect people’s lives, instead of mud-slinging fests in 30 second spots run over and over.

Vermont is the most fundamentally democratic place in the US and always rates in the top few on measures democracy and  performance.  We are one of the most innovative and progressive states in the country and are admired by many political scientists from other states.  Vermont has proven that we  can have a 2 year term and a working democracy.

The British philosopher Edmund Burke once said:  “Liberty is never taken away in one fell swoop; it is taken away in bits and pieces and always for expedience.”

Salmon: Public policy by sound bite

Submitted by Doug Hoffer on Mon, 2012-01-30 10:13

While speaking on the radio recently (WDEV), Tom Salmon offered his views on tax policy. He said he would like Vermont to be a "no income tax state." Apparently he views this as a necessary remedy because "we're a very sketchy state for businesses [and] New Hampshire continues to eat our lunch."

The idea that Vermont's economy is anti-business and suffers in comparison to other states is a common refrain but is not supported by the evidence. For example, for three major economic measures -- rate of job creation, unemployment, and per capita GDP, Vermont has exceeded the national average over the last ten years and is virtually identical to (or better than) New Hampshire.

Like the rest of the country, Vermont still has problems. But to suggest that Vermont is an economic basket case is just plain wrong. And it is hyperbole (if not demagoguery) to suggest that New Hampshire is “eating our lunch.”

Finally, not only is Mr. Salmon's desire for Vermont to be a no-income tax state the wrong remedy, it creates a $600 million dollar hole in the state budget. Mr. Salmon hasn’t said how he would fill that hole. Typically, having no income tax means the state must rely more heavily on regressive property taxes and fees (like New Hampshire). The result is a skewed distribution of the tax burden that benefits the wealthy. 

Mr. Salmon is certainly entitled to his opinion, but as the State Auditor, one would hope that he forms his opinions after careful analysis of the facts. To my knowledge, the Auditor’s Office has not produced any reports that provide the evidence necessary to support Mr. Salmon’s conclusions. In this case, it appears that Mr. Salmon is satisfied with unexamined assumptions and sound bites. These are not qualities we look for in a State Auditor.

Syndicate content