I don’t think anyone can walk away from the
events of the past week without recognizing the deeply felt need to respond
constructively to the levels of violence in our country – and not just related
to schools.
We need to be coming together as a community to
truly consider the many complex issues that contribute, not to just react in
narrow ways that are specific to the most recent horrors.
What do I mean by reacting in a narrow way?
The proposal to limit gun sales to those 21 years
or older is getting center stage right now because the Florida shooting was by
a 19-year-old.
Does it make sense as a broader public policy? It
certainly might. But it needs to be considered on its own merits, not based on reaction
to a single specific circumstance.
I
am committed to listening to the proposals that come before us in the Vermont
legislature, and supporting those that offer real solutions.
However,
we need to recognize that some proposals only create a false sense of security.
I think that many people are very anxious for that perceived security, and
mistakenly see every possible restriction as an answer.
We
do need to have open conversations that put everything on the table, including
looking at whether and where changes in our guns laws can make a difference.
One of our obstacles has been the lines drawn in the sand that do not allow for
this kind of difficult conversations.
I
am equally concerned about pointing to mental health issues, which are
frequently an equally misleading path.
I
think we immediately try to pathologize unthinkable acts as evidence of mental
illness because we can't bear to think such acts could be knowing and
deliberate.
The
vast majority of people with mental health challenges are not violent, and I
fear the "perceived security" issue could lead to denying rights of
those folks inappropriately, as well.
Research
has shown that the rate of violence is not greater among those with a mental
illness compared to those without. The greatest predictor of dangerousness is a
history of violence, not a history of mental illness.
I
am not a gun owner or a hunter, but I am a person with a history of serious mental
illness, so my concern over this response is based on my direct experience.
It
sounds so incredibly reasonable to say that we “must keep guns out the hands of
the mentally ill.” Who could question that? It is a rallying cry on all sides
of the gun issue.
But
it begs the question, how do we define, “the mentally ill”? Note that
immediately, when we use the term “the mentally ill” we depersonalize such
individuals and make them “the other.”
One
out of five Americans will experience mental illness at some time in their
life. Should we ban gun possession by any and all of them? How do we define
“being mentally ill”?
Do
we assume no one recovers from a mental illness? (If so, how do they become
state legislators?)
Some
might suggest that in order to create the widest possible net of safety, anyone
being seen for mental health treatment should be included. Mandatory reporting to
the federal database by counselors of clients receiving treatment?
Imagine
what that would do to the greatest existing obstacle to encouraging people to seek
treatment: the stigma and discrimination that exists.
If
there is any degree of enhanced risk, it is among those who do not seek
treatment – treatment is the last thing we should want to discourage.
Keep
in mind that existing law requires that persons who have refused treatment
after being determined to have a mental illness that requires hospitalization
already must be reported to the federal database.
Vermont
does that – as it does for felons and domestic abusers.
To
whom would we further extend that net?
Our
issues of violence in our society are far more complex than mental illness or
gun laws.
I
give credit to the governor for the breadth of his statement when he expressed
a new willingness to consider gun issues, because that statement went far
beyond guns – and beyond mental illness -- to raise such issues as the impact
of toxic childhood trauma.
I
wholeheartedly agree that doing nothing because it is a complex problem is not an
acceptable response. We address many complex issues by chipping off what we
can, when and where we can.
I am
only urging that we not jump to what appear to be quick and easy responses
solely because they appear to be quick and easy. They rarely are. Our issues
stem from far deeper roots.
***
It
was ironic that in the midst of these traumatic events and national discussion,
the longest debate in the House last week was a bill to ban coyote hunting
competitions that were described by one legislator as the “slaughter of
sentient beings.”
I
don’t pretend to be an expert on the biological and scientific issues regarding
control of predator species and what coyotes do or do not do to weaker species,
or whether hunting competitions increase necessary participation in predator
control versus being conducted “merely for fun” at the expense of wildlife.
I
do think that these are issues that belong in the realm of such experts, and
not in the hands of lay legislators who might be basing decisions on emotion or
public sentiment rather than science.
Some
of those who contacted me said the legislature needed to act because the Fish
and Wildlife Board was refusing to act. I made inquiry during the debate on the
House floor and learned that was not true.
Rather,
it was the Board’s belief that current law did not give it the authority to
address questions about hunting contests, even though it has authority for all
other rules about hunting.
As
a result, I introduced an amendment that would have replaced the proposed legislative
ban on coyote hunting competitions with legislation that clarified the Board’s
authority to review all such contests (not just coyotes.)
That
amendment failed and the bill passed. I guess if the next public outcry is
about deer hunting competitions or rabbit hunting contests, we will have to
take that on legislatively as well. The coyote issue is now in the hands of the
Senate.
***
Fees
are not technically taxes, because they are levied for specific state services
that we deem should be paid for directly by the users of the service.
When
they apply to a service that virtually everyone uses, however, that distinction
gets fuzzy. The whopping cost to register a car is but one example.
Many
fees tend to nickel-and-dime us in very small ways, but they can rapidly add
up. As someone who is very concerned about our tax burdens, it was a tough vote
last week on increasing the Universal Services Fund that appears on our phone
bills.
The
current fee is two percent of the core services bill. I checked my phone bill: last
month the fee was 48 cents. The proposed increase would add one half of one
percent for four years… 12 cents per month on my bill.
The
increase is for the Connectivity Fund for getting broadband services throughout
the state – a goal that has continued to elude us.
Like
when we all pitched in to get electric wires strung in rural areas that were
not cost effective for the service providers, we need to do this. I voted to
increase the fee.
But
it does give rise to worries about much more difficult debates that will occur
later this session.
We
also absolutely need to address our polluted streams and lakes.
Where
will that money come from?
Proposals
have included items such as a per parcel fee on land, or increases in the
property transfer tax. Would it be more honest to impose it as a direct tax
increase borne by everyone?
I
did vote in support of a bill last week that will require a permit from the
Agency of Natural Resources for development of land parcels beginning at a half
acre, down from the current one acre, as of 2022. It was passed on a vote of
125-12.
That
means an eventual wider imposition of fees, plus costs of development (ergo, of
new homes, for business expansion, and even for local towns, when they pave
roads.)
In
other words, it is another hidden tax. At least this one is targeted directly
at the cost of ensuring that new development does not further add to pollution from runoff.
***
Further
money questions over the next several weeks will include whether we should
completely reshape how we fund schools by increasing what we pay from income
and decreasing what we pay in property taxes, as well as addressing the annual
state budget.
Typical
of most budgets, the Governor has proposed some new initiatives along with cuts
that both offset the new items and keep the budget from rising faster than
taxpayer incomes.
Thus
far, the target in the House Appropriations Committee has been to maintain the
target for preventing any tax increase. It takes advice from the policy
committees regarding both cuts and new initiatives.
The
very positive proposals in the human services arena for dental intervention for
school kids and for home visits for new mothers got the thumbs down in that
committee in favor of keeping critical funds for people who have severe needs
for attendant care services at home, and for support for individuals with
developmental disabilities, along with rejecting other cuts.
In
my Health Care Committee, our advice was to support the governor’s proposed
small increase for crisis service programs to help abate the ongoing crisis in
lack of access to mental health care that has created persistent backlogs –
sometimes weeks of waiting – in emergency rooms.
But
we recommended rejecting proposed cuts to our critical primary care system
which would reduce Medicaid reimbursements, and the proposal to eliminate the
small fund for recruitment of more primary care providers to the state.
We
also opposed the cut of state support for insurance co-pays for lower income
persons who are above the level of eligibility for Medicaid but do not have employer-sponsored
health insurance.
***
Among
the initiatives that have run out of time for consideration: the bill I
introduced to reform the property tax inequity for towns with state colleges
versus those with private colleges.
The
chair of the House Ways and Means Committee has told me that this effort,
spearheaded through the work of Chris Bradley, will not be addressed this
session, as the committee has its hands full with the education tax bill.
The
bill has at least raised attention to the issue. Only a fraction of bills
introduced each 2-year session make it through both the House and Senate
process to reach the Governor.
***
Please stay in
touch as you hear about issues affecting you and to keep me informed about your
views. You can reach me at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us. Thank you for the honor of representing you.
