March 25, 2023 Legislative Update

 

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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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.