It is hard to believe we’re approaching town meeting week already, which also means only a week beyond that for the deadline for all policy bills to be out of their committees. Thus, during these next few weeks, the proposals being sent from the House to Senate or vice versa will become much clearer, and will fill floor time with debates and votes. Be sure to catch Rep. Goslant or me at town meeting if you want to weigh in on any of the initiatives you’ve heard about. (Or as usual, catch us by email.)
Three of the major and controversial bills are already out of their primary committees: Paid family leave, the so-called “affordable heating” bill, and one set of new gun restrictions (more are being contemplated in the Senate.)
***
Paid Family Leave
This bill has been passed by the House General and Housing Committee in an extravagant version, with every aspect exceeding what is offered in the several other states that require it, and thus at a hefty price tag. It now sits in the House Ways and Means Committee, which is in charge of the decisions about coming up with the money to pay for things that we want. So, the bill may change quite a bit. It’s how our process works: the policy committees offer up what they think our state’s policies should be, but if it requires new revenues, Ways and Means weighs in, and if it needs money to be spent, the Appropriations Committee makes the final call.
That’s true for the overall budgeting process as well. My committee – Human Services – will be making its recommendations this coming week on what the state budget should cover in a very broad range of services, from elder care facilities to child abuse investigation to food supports. But it’s like a giant wish list and we know there might not be money available. It’s the unenviable task of the Appropriation Committee to listen to what all the various committees are recommending, and to hone the entire list into a balanced budget. Based on testimony my committee has heard, there is a lot of need out there, and it will not all be able to be met.
So, back to paid family and medical leave.
The current bill would require every employer to assure coverage for 12 weeks at 100% of salary for a very long list of needs. They sound reasonable until reading the breadth of definitions. Examples: family member includes any person with whom the employee has a “significant personal bond;” safety leave includes when a family member has an appointment to follow-up on a stalking concern; serious health condition includes anything that requires “continuing treatment,” “parental leave” includes time to bond with a child taken into foster care. There is also entitlement to two weeks bereavement leave, but without an apparent definition.
The cost would be .55 percent of wages deducted from employees, but that could go up if there wasn’t enough in the fund (as in, too much is taken under all those definitions.) An employer can opt to contribute up to half. It may sound like a good deal at $550 for someone making $100,000, until one remembers that buying it is not an option; it’s a mandate. I do believe that a more limited benefit – fewer weeks, 75% of income replacement and much more narrowly defined definitions -- would be a valid step forward, and I would support that, with a big, “if.”
The legislative majority this year is also pushing for a huge new investment in childcare and a carbon reduction bill that will significantly raise heating costs. I believe in both of those policies as well, but I firmly believe that we cannot take all these on at once. They add up. The economic impact on Vermonters would be too great. Among these, I would place paid family leave third in priority.
***
Clean Heat
Last year’s vetoed “clean heat” bill has been renamed the more appealing sounding “affordable heat” bill, based on the premise that it will create affordability decades down the line. In the shorter term, it will cost a lot of money, and the debate is not whether that is true but rather, by how much. The Senate Natural Resources Committee has voted the bill out and it is now in Senate Appropriations before it goes to the full Senate.
What it proposes is having the Public Utility Commission develop an incredibly complex plan that will shift us all away from oil and propane over to electricity (produced, it is hoped, through “green” methods) by forcing fuel dealers to help subsidize the replacement of home heating systems. Of course, until full conversion occurs, those subsidies will need to be paid through higher fuel costs paid by those of us who haven’t converted yet.
We won’t actually know what the cost might be until after the Commission develops the plan. But the bill also directs them to proceed to implement it. So, the legislature would be blindly handing over a blank check. Last year, I voted against the House version because it included the same blank check. The Senate revised it to have the plan delivered back to the legislature for approval before it could be implemented, and I voted for that version. It will be the same for me this year. I won’t support a version that washes the legislature’s hands of the cost.
A final note: it is often repeated that we have no choice to move forward on this in order to meet our mandatory climate change goal deadlines, otherwise we can be sued. That’s true, except we created that in statute, which means it can be repealed or deadlines can be changed by the legislature. I’m not recommending that we do that callously, but it is important to remember that the “mandate” is self-made. One of the most famous words in legislative language is “notwithstanding.” Regardless of existing current law, we can direct something different to happen. No legislature can bind a future legislature against changing laws. We could likewise “notwithstand” or repeal the Affordable Heat bill after the Public Utility Commission develops the plan, but it would require affirmative intervention by the legislature, just as removing the climate goals mandate would.
***
Guns
The House Health Care Committee has voted out a bill on suicide prevention through gun restrictions. It’s under review by the Judiciary Committee this week. I’m glad of the source. I’ve objected in the past when bills have been proposed justified on the basis of suicide prevention without any review by the Health Care Committee (in fact, I’ve made unsuccessful motions on the floor to have such bills reviewed by Health Care.)
That doesn’t mean this bill makes sense. Constitutional rights – including the Second Amendment – are not absolute, but they do require a very high threshold of justification. I have voted for several restrictions over the years (the Extreme Risk Protection Order bill, for example), but most proposals have been based on restrictions that have no demonstrable relationship to the harm they are trying to prevent. I won’t support those.
There are two major parts of this bill. One is a 72-hour waiting period to purchase a gun; the other is a requirement that guns and ammunitions be locked if there is a reasonable chance of a minor or “prohibited person” from gaining access.
The problem with the first is that there has never been an effort to gather actual data that shows how many people have purchased a gun for the purpose of a suicide. Guns are clearly the deadliest form of attempted suicide and as a result, reflect the highest number of suicide deaths. However, it is highly reasonably to suspect that the vast majority of those are by individuals who already owns guns. We are a high ownership state, with a resulting high suicide-by-gun rate.
When I was in my period of severe clinical depression and contemplated suicide, it was through other methods, because I don’t own a gun. Without such familiarity, I would not have considered purchasing one for that purpose. I know anecdotally of two cases in the past 10 years where there was a such a purchase. But several years ago, I offered to introduce a bill to actually review cases to identify the sources of weapons used, and the idea was rejected. If this link was proven to be significant, I would support a waiting time for first-time gun purchases. (Not purchases by those who already own guns, for what should be obvious reasons.)
The issue is similar for the locked-gun requirement. Where is the Vermont data that there is a problem that needs to be addressed – and I don’t mean anecdotal data or a single tragic event? If this kind of carelessness by gun owners is a serious issue in Vermont, then I would support creating an enforceable standard that requires reasonable care. But I will want to see that evidence before considering restriction of a constitutional right.
***
Committee Work
A truly significant threat to life is clear in the 212 Vermonters who died last year as a result of a drug overdose. We tried a lot of interventions, but we need to do more to protect people against the deadly illness of addiction. My committee is working on a multi-prong approach. Much was in a bill that was vetoed last year, but the veto was based on only one part of it.
That part was a proposal for a study of what are called “safe injection” sites, where people can use illegal drugs in the presence of medical personnel in case things go wrong. I voted for last year’s bill because looking into the pros and cons (before any decision) made sense. This year – with no fear of a veto, given the super-majority – my committee is taking testimony on potentially starting a program. I don’t want to prejudge without hearing all the testimony and discussion, including what the parameters might be, but I think I will be very hard-pressed to go there.
Our committee is looking at a bill to have the state develop a proposal for how (and whether) we should remove the “ratable reduction” on support for families with children (the “Reach Up” program.) Currently, we take the calculation of a budget that meets just basic need (about half the estimated “livable budget”), subtract the other cash benefits a family receives, and then say, in effect, “we need to keep our budget stable, so we’re going to automatically reduce the remaining amount by half.” A parent with three children is estimated to need $1,309 a month but gets $976 under the formula.
New Hampshire has eliminated a similar reduction and found it added no costs, because people got off supports more rapidly when they had adequate support to regain stability. I think we need to understand impacts of decisions we make. I support this study. Whether it is affordable to do anything about the recommendations will be the question to be addressed next year.
My “right to repair” bill has been receiving some media attention, and hopefully that will encourage the committees of jurisdiction to take them up (one is broad-based, the other sets agriculture equipment as a first priority.) Manufacturers, more and more, are making it impossible for you to do repairs on things you buy and own, by requiring specialized tools to access parts, sole-sourcing parts, etc. It creates a monopoly for dealers for all repairs.
I came to understand this issue thanks to a high school entrepreneur in Berlin, Jesse Batdorff, who was frustrated in efforts to use his skills in electronics. I teamed up with a Democratic legislator who has been working on the issue for a while, so the bills are bipartisan.
Watch for a potential WCAX piece with Jesse in the coming week or so!
My committee’s final budget recommendations will likely include creation of an advisory stakeholder group to work with the Department of Families and Children on the planning for new juvenile lock-up facilities. As with so many issues, we don’t have the time for deep analysis, nor should we micromanage how the administration does its job.
In this case, we think they need more guidance than just from inside the Department, so this is a way to balance that need. As I referenced in my last update, DCF want a deferral from moving older teens into its jurisdiction until it finishes all the facility planning. That’s thinking backwards, and a reason for concern over turning decisions over without any outside eyes.
***
Please contact Ken or me anytime; adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. All of my updates are accessible at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment