Legislative
Update
Rep.
Anne Donahue
March
25, 2023
We
had three long days of debate addressing bills that are now headed to the
Senate. Spoiler alert: if a bill comes to the House floor, it will be passed by
us. It also has a solid chance to override a veto, given a Democratic
super-majority.
***
Paid
Leave
One
new initiative is paid family and medical leave. Side-by-side review shows that
it will be the most expansive benefit among the nine states that have such
programs. Setting up the infrastructure will cost an estimated $111.5 million from
our budget over 3 years. Beginning in 2026, it will cost between $118 to $214
million per year in premiums shared between employers and employees. It will
require 65 new state employees, assuming we can find them; 10% of state jobs
are currently open. There is no choice involved. Everyone pays in and everyone
has access to the benefits.
There
are alternatives: start smaller and expand infrastructure and benefits after we
know what is sustainable. Better yet: adopt the program developed by the
governor for state staff which starts this year and uses a well-established
commercial financer. Their infrastructure is already in place and private employers
could buy in. It would also allow for individual employees to choose whether
the cost-benefit meets their needs, and they could buy in even if their
employer did not participate, ergo, an equally universal opportunity, but not a
mandatory one.
If
we found it did not work in the ways we had hoped, it would not foreclose
creating a system of our own in the future. This private alternate is how New
York and two other states run their programs.
I
would support starting up that way. I think paid leave is incredibly important
to support working families. I would really like to see a sustainable way
forward to make it available. And if optional, it avoids forcing other
trade-offs, which I’ll discuss later.
***
Universal
School Meals
This
program has strong support for becoming permanent. There are benefits,
including capturing children whose families struggle making ends meet but are
not eligible for free meals under the federal program. There is also a bigger
bang-for-the-buck. Some features for federal support mean that making meals
available to all kids brings in a higher reimbursement rate.
There
are many intangible benefits that were articulated by constituents last year
when we were extending the COVID-funded program for one year. It was a tough
call, but I voted against it then, based on the number of constituents who
opposed it and the fear that the one-year extension would increase momentum to
make it permanent in our tax base. Worst, the scuttlebutt was that the sales
tax would become the permanent funding source. Our most regressive tax! The
least wealthy pay the highest percentage of income, and the wealthy, the lowest,
meaning low-income folks paying in to taxes to feed wealthier kids.
This
year, the decision was made to roll it into the Education Fund, paid for
primarily through property taxes, and thus, structured progressively. Based on
that and the strong constituent support, this year I voted for it. But with
reluctance, because of the timeline of our decisions in our overall budget
process. Again, keep reading for more on that issue.
***
Gun
Restrictions
New
gun restrictions also passed this week, with a stated focus on suicide
prevention. There are several unequivocal facts: Vermont has a suicide rate
much higher than the national average and growing; this is directly tied to
high gun ownership in our state; suicide attempts by firearm are nearly always
lethal, compared to those attempted by other means.
There
are three parts: a 72-hour waiting period for any firearm purchase (to thwart
impetuous actions); a safe storage provision requiring firearms to be locked if
a minor might get access; adding any family or household member as a person who
can file a petition for an extreme risk protection order to remove firearms
from a person.
The
first issue was whether the bill was constitutional, given a new US Supreme
Court decision last year changing how gun laws are reviewed under the 2nd
amendment. The Offices of the Attorney General and of the Defender General (the
state’s top two attorneys) had opposite opinions on that.
As
someone who has spent decades in the work to address suicide – myself a
survivor of several suicide attempts during my severe illness in the 1990s –
this issue is close to my heart.
I
have received an award for my work from the Vermont Suicide Prevention
Coalition. Suicide is a terrible tragedy not just for the individual but also
for family and friends. If I were a gun owner, I would likely not be alive
today. My attempts had far lower risk of lethality. Fortunately for me, I
dislike guns. I’ve never owned one.
But
I hold a priority on defending constitutional rights on any issue. Yet no right
is absolute. I have voted for gun restrictions when it was clear that the
benefit in protecting others outweighed burdens on 2nd amendment
rights.
In
this case, the second question was whether the restrictions would actually be a
benefit. I put a great deal of time into reviewing the research on the measures
in this bill. It’s clear that the 72-hour wait would have almost no impact.
States where guns are already widely available do not benefit by sale delays.
These deaths occur because weapons are there, so that is the option chosen.
The
preeminent study reviewed a 5-year period (1994-1998) when many states had to
institute a 5-day waiting period to enforce the federal Brady bill background
check before the instant check system went into place. That included Vermont.
During that time, there was no change in our own rate of suicide. In the past
10 years, there have been more than 400,000 gun sales in Vermont, with two
deaths known to have resulted within 72 hours of a purchase. However, the House
rejected an amendment to permit buyers who had proof of existing gun ownership
to be exempt.
We
know less about safe storage. We do not know how many individuals accessed a
gun for a suicide despite it being secured, or as the existing owner, versus it
being unsecured and accessed without permission. It would be easy to gather
that data, and I’ve urged in the past that we do so. I offered an amendment to
postpone the bill one year to first gather it and make informed decisions based
on the actual Vermont experience. When that was rejected, I proposed that we at
least direct the administration to gather it, so that it could be reviewed for
potential later adjustments to the bill. Incredibly, that was rejected.
Finally,
I offered an amendment expanding those able to file a petition to include law
enforcement, but to remove the new proposed broadly defined categories of extended
family or household. They can have a petition filed today, with assistance by
the state’s attorney office. Acting alone, such petitions will be more likely
to be driven by emotion, not neutral facts. They allow no opportunity for the
person at issue to be present, and they remain in place for 14 days until a
hearing is held. This was also turned down.
Many
members voted believing this bill will help prevent suicide, and it passed with
a 2/3rds vote. The evidence does not support that, and the bill is also quite
likely to be found unconstitutional. I voted against it.
***
Budget
Priorities
All
three of these issues relate to the budget, which is the expression of values
and priorities as a state. There are significant areas where funding for
essential social services is being cut, through providing no increase against
an 8% inflation rate. Our community mental health centers – our strongest
protective service addressing suicide – were cut in that way in the governor’s
budget despite the challenges in attracting workforce given an inability to
offer competitive wages. In the House, they may at best see a 4% increase, but
we don’t have the budget before us yet to know what will be proposed. Meals on
Wheels, the food bank, our nursing homes, our youth support agencies – even youth
mentoring, a proven low-cost intervention – are all facing cuts.
We
continue with little progress on ensuring health care access. Tens of thousands
of families are unable to get care because of unaffordable deductibles and
copays. We have seniors who see a major drop in coverage when they transition
to Medicare.
Worst,
legislators have had to vote on the new programs like school meals and paid
leave without knowing what the cuts might be, what else is being funded, or
what revenues will be available, because we won’t see the budget until next
week. We do know that other major budget additions are planned for childcare,
housing, and carbon reductions (the new clean heat bill, after last year’s
veto), but we don’t know the amounts being proposed. But existing priorities
are being cut to jump to new ones. Good ones, but at the cost of existing ones.
That was my caveat on my vote for school meals. It may increase the odds that I
will feel compelled to vote against the budget when I see what the final
trade-offs are.
Say
you go to the grocery store. You start in produce, and you see a new product: a
veggie that your kids will likely eat! Beneficial to their health, and though it
will be an addition to your budget, it will be a good investment. But you
haven’t gotten to the milk or the bread or the eggs yet to find out whether
their costs have gone up. Worse, you don’t even know how much you have in your
wallet. Do you buy the new veggie right away? Or do you first check the prices
on the other things you need and would not want to cut out? And do you first check
what’s in your wallet?
When
we get to the checkout lane next week, I don’t know whether we can afford
everything I would like to have or to buy for you. And I’ll have no opportunity
to return anything. It’s an up or down vote.
***
Finally,
congratulations to Rachel Giroux, Berlin’s Town Clerk, for being named to the
Secretary of State’s Town Clerk Advisory Committee.
***
Please
share your input and thoughts. You can reach me at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us, or Rep. Ken
Goslant at kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us It is an honor to
represent you.
