We’re
approaching the major shift when the detailed work of committees begins to
emerge as proposed bills to be debated on the House floor to send on to the
Senate. (Per the old saying: it is not the beginning of the end, but it is the
end of the beginning.)
This
means that the thinking on some of the big priorities for this year are becoming
visible; in particular this past week, the responses to climate change.
The
first stage of budget review in the Appropriations Committee is also ending. The
committee has walked through all of the governor’s proposals and identified the
gaps and areas for discussion and potential disagreement.
***
Budget
Issues
In
the opinion of the Appropriations Committee, the legislature has not been
presented with a balanced budget proposal. That response is pretty typical in
any given year.
When
the “squishy” numbers involved in trying to get to a bottom line are removed,
revenues and expenditures don’t align. Ultimately, what we pass will have
squishy numbers of our own, with a budget partially based on hoped-for
outcomes.
Each
committee evaluates the portions of the budget within its policy domain, and
what the budget gap means at this stage is that House Democratic leadership is
telling committee chairs that their recommendations back to Appropriations in
response to the governor’s proposals need to identify priorities (meaning, what
they least object to being cut.)
Committees
also cannot be asking for their own new projects unless they identify an
existing source of revenue, such as eliminating a currently existing budget item.
Within
those constraints are embedded the money that House leadership believes needs
to be reserved for its own priorities. (See climate change bill discussion,
below.)
In
my Health Care Committee, there are only a few new budget proposals we have to
review, but it will be tough to not be able to tell Appropriations that each
one is equally essential, because they all directly relate to the state’s
mental health crisis and rising rates of suicide.
They
include further investments (about $400,000) in education and training within
the health care system for identification and response to suicidality under a
program that has proven to be highly effective when implemented in other
states, and which has already been initiated in three Vermont counties.
They
also include the start of a mobile response program for families in crisis in
Rutland County (at a cost of $600,000) which, if successful, would be rolled
out in other counties in future years.
We
have two committee priorities of our own. First is to keep chipping away at the
subgroups of Vermonters who face the greatest barriers and inequities to health
access.
We’d
like to invest some money for just a small amount in premium support for the “cliff”
that occurs when low-moderate income working families who must buy their own
insurance are just over the financial threshold for eligibility for any
assistance.
These
are folks who are paying more than $5,000 per person for policies that have
deductibles of more than $6,000, amounting to more than 20 percent of their income.
I
just needed cataract surgery; the successful surgery has restored my ability to
read normal size print. The bill will exceed $5,000 but my out-of-pocket cap is
$1,350.
That’s
still a lot to come up with, but if I had to pay for the whole thing, I’m not
sure if I could have swung it without taking it out of retirement savings.
That
makes me pretty lucky, and even as a low-moderate income person I’m willing to
chip in for those who don’t have that level of access.
We
are also working together with the Commerce and Economic Development Committee
on mechanisms to help bring more health care workforce to Vermont.
We
have a growing shortfall in all levels of nursing and in rural primary care
doctors, and must compete with states that have strong incentive programs such
as educational loan repayments.
That
takes money. But we don’t do it, it increasingly raises our health care costs, such
as the need for hospitals to use high-cost “temp agency” providers.
We
are working on several bills that may help in ways that don’t cost money, by
expanding access to tele-health, increasing the scope of practice for providers
like physician assistants, and easing the barriers for licensure for those
already licensed in other states.
In
the coming weeks we’ll see the wish lists from other committees, and it’s
likely that none of them will be frivolous – whether childcare, afterschool
programs, tourism development (i.e., investments to bolster state revenues), or
state support for local roads and bridges, just as a sampling.
One
investment recommended by the governor that is not getting much legislative
traction is a particular frustration for me, because I’ve been pushing for it
for so long. That’s the tax break for veteran pensions.
It
is an investment because anything that reduces state revenue is, in reality, something
that costs the same money as if it was a new appropriation, yet it is highly
likely that it will raise more revenue than what it may cost.
Retired
military are a middle-aged, skilled workforce with families that are still
young. They are exactly the folks we desperately need to attract to Vermont to
reverse our sharply aging demographics. The taxes they will pay on the income
they make in their new jobs will increase state revenues.
The
problem is that nearly every other state gives tax breaks on their pensions.
Why would they move (or stay) here, in the face of that?
Compare
that investment to our current scheme of offering $10,000 to remote workers
willing to relocate here. Yet it’s perceived as something that will be a benefit
to higher income earners, which doesn’t sell well.
It’s
a real issue for recruitment for Norwich, and I’ve convinced the chair of the
Commerce Committee to hear testimony from several Northfield families to
explain its importance.
My
hope is that if that committee “gets it,” it will push the Ways and Means (tax)
Committee to be more receptive. Right now, it remains a very uphill battle.
***
Every
Vote Counts
If
anyone doubted the importance of every legislator’s vote, it was proven last
week in the single vote that sustained the governor’s veto of paid family
leave. (The coming vote on the minimum wage supplemental increase will be
equally close.)
Democrats
were not able to rally all of their members in support of a veto override,
which was what made the difference. There were some ugly public statements
made, unfortunately, by party leadership about one of their own who stuck to
her opposition to the bill despite a good deal of pressure from them.
The
thing that has enabled me to stay a Republican in the face of the pretty horrible
national scene has been that in our caucus here, I have never faced approbation
when I have voted my own conscience contrary to a party position.
It’s
a commitment of our leadership that has always held true. I am not lock step on
every issue, and when my views differ, they are respected by my peers.
***
Climate
Change
That
segues well into the climate change bill, where I may well find myself at odds
with many Republicans.
The
first major bill has come out from the Energy and Technology Committee, titled
the “Vermont Global Warming Solutions Act.”
“Solution”
is undoubtably an exaggeration, but some will still find it quite overbearing.
It changes our greenhouse gas reduction goals from goals to mandates and creates
a Vermont Climate Council that will create an action plan to reach them. The
Agency of Natural Resources would be empowered to adopt rules to enforce the plan.
That
last piece is worrisome to me. Delegating major decision-making powers that are
usually the responsibility of the elected legislature into the hands of an
administrative agency threatens to disenfranchise the public.
On
the other hand, such a statute isn’t written in stone, because no law ever is.
If an agency ran amuck, a future legislature could change the law. But it’s
harder to reign something back in once it’s been let loose.
The
two Republicans on the 9-member committee voted against it; the one Independent,
one Progressive, and five Democrats voted for it.
It
includes almost one million in new appropriations to implement, so it has been
sent to the Appropriations Committee to be vetted before coming to the floor.
That
is one of the new money items that will push others off the table. (See budget
discussion, above.)
Incidentally,
if you sometimes worry about the quality of education today, you should see the
set of letters I received from Northfield students who recently took a marine
biology course and learned about impacts of pollution and climate change.
They
thanked me for last year’s vote for the plastic bag ban and asked me to support
climate change legislation this year.
They
were thoughtful, articulate, well-written, respectful letters that showed independent
thinking skills. They were obviously part of a class assignment, but so much
the better; they are being taught how to make use of their voices in a
democracy.
***
And
One Tidbit
I’m
getting a lot of reaction to a brief bill I just introduced that would require
car rental companies to place prominent notices on contracts if they ban use of
their cars on dirt roads – reaction from folks saying, “Is this an issue in
Vermont?”
Yup;
I’ll bet you didn’t know it either. It’s in part of the tiny print on those
multi-page contracts: no driving on dirt roads. On cars being rented in Vermont?!!
The fact that they aren’t equipped with snow tires is a related issue.
Within
a day I got a visit from the lobbyist for Enterprise (and the bill doesn’t even
demand that they allow driving on dirt roads; it’s just a notice as a consumer
protection issue.)
I
explained the issue; she is going back to discuss it with her client; fingers
crossed that it may be one of those bills that won’t even have to be taken up
because the mere threat of it solves the problem.
***
Feel
free to get in touch any time during the session with Rep. Goslant and me.
There is a lot going on, so if you have questions about something – ask. We are
buried in committee work and don’t always know what is happening in other
committees, but we can find out for you. It is an honor to serve you. (kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us; adonahue@leg.state.vt.us)
No comments:
Post a Comment