Legislative Update
Rep. Anne Donahue
Feb. 12, 2022
It’s a rare day that would see all political parties agree on a $50 million tax break, recognizing that with our current bubble of state revenue, some should be returned to the taxpayers.
The difference of opinion this week on the House floor was which Vermonters should receive the benefits. The governor had proposed tax relief in multiple targeted areas (money spread wider, but in smaller amounts), and the Democratic majority countered with a bill that focused almost exclusively on one (a big impact for a much smaller group.)
The bill that passed mostly along party lines, 102-46, would provide an annual $1,200 tax credit for every child up to age six for every family with an income below $200,000. It extends to families with incomes above that on a scaled reduction up through $240,000. It also would increase the Social Security tax exemption threshold by $5,000.
The governor’s proposal included increases in the earned income tax credit for lower income families with children and in the childcare and dependent tax credit; tax credits for student loan repayment, first time homebuyers, nursing and childcare workers, and industry workforce shortage areas; and tax exemptions for military pensions and social security income. His proposals were not even vetted by the committee before moving this new bill, and there will be no additional revenues available to take them up later this session.
The first attempt at a floor amendment would have reduced the eligibility for the child tax credit to families under a $100,000 income. That would have also freed up money to include some of the governor’s proposals.
The chair of the tax committee argued that the tax credit was aimed at two separate issues: to help struggling, low-income families, and then for higher wage-earners, to send a message that Vermont was child-friendly and thus induce more young families to move here. This would thus also help our workforce shortage. I asked whether the committee had taken any testimony at all on evidence that such benefits actually do entice families, and the answer was, no. This rationale was purely hypothetical.
The amendment failed, however, 55-88.That meant that other proposed amendments to invest tax credits or exemptions in other areas were immediately found not germane and were blocked from being debated. I supported the initial bill on the first day of debate in the interest of keeping it moving, knowing amendments were coming. I voted against it when those efforts failed.
It is now in the Senate hands, where it might be tweaked, radically altered, or discarded. The final resolution of any configuration of tax relief will come after the House and Senate ultimately come to agreement over differences.
My district-mate, Rep. Ken Goslant, gave a vote explanation that explained the reason for opposing the bill very articulately: “Today I voted against this bill, not because I am opposed to tax relief to young families and expanding the Social Security income tax exemption. In fact, I am thrilled that we are discussing returning nearly $50m to Vermonters… and are finally talking about ways to attract more people to the State.
“However, I voted no because I believe other tax relief proposals should be vetted and discussed before moving something of this magnitude. It is time that we pay attention to our seniors, and I believe that we can do much more on Social Security than a $5000 increase. I hope that we can continue the conversation on how to provide tax relief to as many Vermonters as possible, including military retirees, those with student loan debt, nurses, childcare workers, those with not just children but adult dependents and more.”
***
Committee Work
My House Health Care Committee voted out our bill unanimously on creating a licensing process for providers who are out of state but want to offer health care to patients in Vermont via telehealth. It is now in the Ways and Means Committee to address the fee structure.
We think it is important to maintain this access for Vermonters, but also protect against practitioners who do not meet standards of care. Permitting it was a huge benefit during COVID, but it is a bit scary to think about it being completely without oversight.
Most of our current committee work is on reviewing budget recommendations and developing health care workforce proposals for the Commerce Committee's comprehensive workforce bill. There are many competing needs. We recognize that many parts of our economy are desperate for workforce support, but if you don't have health care providers, much of the rest isn't really going to help!
The most severe current shortages are in nursing and in mental health providers. One clear need is to find better support to bring in nursing faculty and clinician-educators. We had large numbers of would-be nursing students turned away from our colleges’ programs last year for lack of capacity, driven by those lacks.
We also heard testimony about how access to mental health care is crumbling in the state, even as needs increase. Salaries in our mostly publicly funded community agencies are so far below other sectors that they are experiencing vacancy rates between 30 and 50 percent in some programs.
The governor has proposed some additional money in the budget for expanded mobile outreach programs. These are urgently needed, but we have to also face the question about opening new programs if salaries are too low to fill staff for existing ones.
One example is a crisis residence for children which now is closed on weekends for lack of staff. This only increases the problem of children ending up in the emergency room. The lack of inpatient beds that then results is even more children who are held waiting there for days and sometimes weeks. Yet, expanded mobile response could help divert from both of those needs.
We have also just started work on a bill to address some of the practices of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs), which are the hidden intermediaries between pharmacies, insurers, and drug manufacturers. They have the ability to manipulate a lot of where the money flows. Our small independent pharmacies are the ones being most hurt by their practices.
***
Abortion
Proposal 5, the “personal reproductive autonomy” constitutional amendment, is now on its way to the November ballot for a vote; it will join the other proposed constitutional amendment, Proposal 2, which makes the prohibition on slavery more explicit. The final legislative vote in favor of moving it forward was 107-41.
It will place voters in an unfortunate position, because anyone who wants to protect the abortion access rights of Roe v Wade in our constitution will feel the need to vote for this amendment. However, it essentially eliminates the balancing that Roe v Wade identified between privacy rights and the right of society to have an interest in the “developing young in the uterus” in the late months of pregnancy.
As Rep. Carl Rosenquist eloquently said, “This is not who we are,” to choose the exclusive rights of one group of people over the other. Most Vermonters support some restrictions in the third trimester and measures such as healthcare provider conscience protection, but these would likely be barred. It will also leave it to our judicial branch to interpret the undefined term “reproductive autonomy;” abortion is never directly mentioned in the language and this is intended as a much broader concept.
In my lengthy floor speech (and you can ask for a copy if you would like one) I argued that it was irresponsible of us to propose such an all-or-nothing, extreme perspective to the voters, ignoring the reasons for the deeply ethical questions that have divided people of good will both across the globe and through the centuries. I truly believe everyone in our legislature – and all Vermonters -- hold the positions they do based upon an interest in protecting human rights. But we interpret those rights under very different lenses.
I reflected on the times in the past that we have chosen to deem some lives as inferior to others with consequences now recognized as horrific: slaughter of indigenous peoples for their land; buying and selling of captives from Africa; sterilizing those we believed to be unfit to procreate. Each of those actions were deemed acceptable in their time. I quoted Eric Metaxas, author of Seven Women and the Secret of Their Greatness, who said: “Each era has the fatal hubris to believe that it has once and for all climbed to the top of the mountain and can see everything as it is, from the highest and most objective vantage point possible.”
I closed with a request to my colleagues: “Let us each have the humility to leave today a slight bit less certain that our perspective can stand the test of time.”
***
Town meeting week is just around the corner, and the legislature is in recess specifically to help provide access to constituents. It’s the best time to connect with Ken or me to discuss pending issues, ask questions or share your input. Please contact us at any time with comments or input at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. It is an honor to represent you.
No comments:
Post a Comment