A
few years ago, I remember a session that felt as though it was rushing to early
closure, without enough time to address issues still ahead of us. This year, it
seems as though we are ahead of schedule. The difference is the effect of
weather. That past session, an early spring created a sense of time running
short. This year, the damp and cold makes it feel as though adjournment is
months away, not weeks.
It
is an election year, however, which means politics is more entangled with
legislative actions. There will be bills sent to the governor despite knowledge
that they will be vetoed with the primary intent of placing the governor in a
bad light, and there will be actions by the governor for the purpose of making
a Democratically-controlled legislature look unreasonable. Such is the price of
a democracy, where allowing for robust debate from different perspectives
really does usually help foster better outcomes in the end.
Toxics Bill Veto
The
first such bill would expand state regulation of toxic chemicals in children’s
products. It was vetoed by the governor last week and is now coming before the
House for the override vote. The governor, in his veto message, said it was a
measure that would be bad for business – not a very strong rebuttal to the
effort to make him appear willing to sacrifice the health of children.
The
reality is that we have a strong law passed just a few years ago that allows the
Commissioner of Health to ban “chemicals of high concern” on the
recommendations of a committee that includes leaders of several state agencies,
based on scientific evidence. This new version would give the Commissioner sole
authority to decide that a substance might expose children to harm, and to do
so based upon just a single study, regardless of what the weight of the overall
evidence is. That’s why it’s bad for business, and for consumers as well. There
could be an awful lot of products that are banned or have warning labels
required when there isn’t valid evidence of potential harm. I voted against it
and will support the governor’s veto.
Education Funding
Last
spring, the governor vetoed the budget in an effort to push for cost
containment in education funding through a statewide contract for teacher’s
health insurance. He won widespread support – it was the legislature that
looked bad – but he caved early by assuring everyone that he would not stand
his ground to the point of having the state face a Washington-type shutdown.
That’s sort of showing your cards in advance.
The
compromise deal instead reduced the projected increase in the property tax by spending
education fund reserves and one-time funds. It made it appear that the savings
the governor wanted were achieved, but everyone knew it would come back and
bite this year. It has. There is now a $40 million shortfall in the education
fund and property tax rates are being driven much higher despite the very
conservative budgets passed by towns this spring. The governor is pushing for
savings again, but he will be hard pressed to identify where the money can come
from.
The
efforts on the part of the legislature, you may recall, have been on changing
where the money comes from but not how much is spent. The House bill creating
an income tax surcharge to reduce the amount paid through property taxes is
still being reviewed in the Senate.
Thus
far this year the overall state budget is toeing the governor’s line on “no new
taxes or fees,” but there are taxes and fees being snuck into side bills,
nickel-and-diming taxpayers. The governor is threatening to veto all of those,
which could add up to a fairly long list. I voted against most, but not all of
them.
Universal Primary
Care
My
committee is in the final decision-making phase regarding a Senate bill that
would take the next step in establishing access to primary health care for all
in Vermont. There is a great deal of value to an approach to curbing health
care costs that begins by ensuring that everyone can receive early
interventions that can prevent high cost health care needs later. It would also
start us on the path towards more equitable access to health care, regardless
of what coverage one’s job does or does not offer. That’s something I strongly
support.
While
almost all Vermonters have some type of insurance, the cost burden is extremely
inequitable. The very poor (through Medicaid) and the very wealthy (with only a
small percentage of their job compensation going towards health insurance) pay
relatively little or nothing. However, some of those in the middle end up with
very high premiums and with co-pay levels that make it still too expensive to
access care.
The
problem, however, is that – for better or worse – we have already embarked on a
path to health care cost reform that is making huge alterations in how money
flows through the system and how providers are paid. To try to take on a second
major, overlapping restructuring at the same time would risk dooming both to
failure. There just isn’t enough bandwidth to do it all at once. So I will be
voting against the bill in the committee.
Mental Health
Progress
Two
weeks ago, I reported on the University of Vermont Health Network’s concept of
developing a new inpatient wing for psychiatry at Central Vermont Medical
Center. The idea has received positive endorsement in the legislature. Among
other things, it brings inpatient psychiatry more fully under the wing of our
health and hospitals system, instead of being relegated – based on history and
discrimination – to being a state function. It has also meant rejection of the
idea of creating a 20-bed inpatient wing at a proposed new mega-prison in St.
Albans. (That proposal included closing some of our more antiquated prisons and
bringing back Vermonters placed in out-of-state prisons.)
The
UVM project is still at least four years down the line, however, so the need
for a more immediate interim solution to address the desperate shortage of
inpatient beds remained with us. Now a potential solution has emerged for that
as well. The Brattleboro Retreat has existing space that is being used for
offices but can be rehabilitated and restored for hospital use during these
next several years. This plan that would come at a much lower cost to taxpayers
($17 million versus $29 million over four years) – and be online sooner – than
the administration’s original plan for a temporary 12-bed forensic unit. By the
time the CVMC unit is ready, the Retreat will need to be phasing out some of
its adult inpatient care because of loss of a federal funding waiver, and that
space can be transitioned to much-needed stepdown and geriatric residential
programs. Our health care committee has endorsed this plan. I am quite proud of
the significant role I played in pushing the state to seek out this better
solution.
When Is It a
Crime?
Everyone
knows that if you punch someone in the nose, it’s a crime. What if you swing
and miss? Appropriately enough, that’s still a crime. You don’t get the benefit
of having failed in your attempt, and the potential punishment is the same. But
what if you are heading down the street with the intent to punch someone, but
you haven’t arrived there yet? Have you committed a crime at that point? When
does your intent become an attempt? That is the issue in the case of the young
man who had put together a plan to shoot up Fair Haven Union High School. The
Supreme Court has ruled that he had not yet attempted to actually commit the
horrific intended actions, so the charges are now likely to be dismissed.
Many
people are horrified at the thought that current law might mean waiting until a
person intent on harm actually walks onto school grounds with his guns before
he can be arrested. The governor has gone so far as to say that the man’s
defense attorneys are exploiting a loophole to get him set free. That’s hardly
fair. All his attorneys have done is to point out that he has not committed a
crime under our laws.
However,
the push is now on for the Legislature to redefine “attempt” crimes so that
they would cover this kind of situation in the future. (It cannot, under the
constitution, be applied retroactively.) The push, in fact, is to have us
recklessly rush changes through to make a show of how much we care for our kids
– but without caring in the least whether we are passing thoughtful
legislation. When you change a law, you change it for all circumstances, not
just for the compelling situation in front of you. That’s the meaning of the
old adage, “Hard cases make bad law.”
I
certainly think we must address the issue of stopping individuals who are
actively engaging in planning a mass murder. But I’m not sure someone walking
down the road intending to beat someone up should face the same jail time as a
person who actually beats someone up. I think we need to consider all the
consequences before rushing to rewrite law in reaction to one situation. The
epidemic of gun violence and the fact that its reality has hit home in Vermont
seems to be leading us into legislating by hysteria this year. We are stumbling
over ourselves to prove how much we care without regard to whether our actions
are going to help – and to whether they might actually cause harm.
***
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment