tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55042984329432192882024-03-17T06:52:18.457-07:00Representative Anne Donahuerepresentativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.comBlogger122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-53132004978511500982024-03-17T06:51:00.000-07:002024-03-17T06:51:37.516-07:00March 17, 2024 Legislative Update<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">In
these updates, I typically discuss bills in some depth when they are of
particular import or being worked on in my committee. There isn’t nearly space
to address every bill throughout the session. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">But
this past week, the crossover deadline, it seems of value to briefly summarize
many of them to provide a sense of the breath of subjects being addressed.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Crossover
means the last chance for bills to come out from House or Senate committees if
they are to be taken up by the other body this year. Many have broad or
unanimous support, so they don’t make headlines.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Deadlines
are later for the two biggest decisions of the session: what do we spend, and
do we raise taxes to do it? </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">There
are various tax increase proposals on the table to fund more spending. An
example is H.828, which would add a three percent surcharge on existing income
taxes for individuals making more than $500,000.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">First,
a couple of notable bills that passed this week on the House floor: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">A
bill on retail theft allows multiple small thefts within the same two weeks to
be combined in their value so that if they add up to $900 – the current level
to become a felony – they can be treated as a felony. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">This
is a bone being tossed towards being able to claim to be addressing the widespread
concerns about public safety and lack of accountability for crimes. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">On
the same day, we passed a bill that allows for expanding the diversion system
so that folks can be “diverted” from criminal prosecution multiple times, and
have their records expunged. I think diversion is an excellent tool, but not
for repeat offenses and not to fully delete records. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">(Also
coming up is a bill that revises the categories for such expungements of
records.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">One
of the best health care bills of the session passed this week, to address
unnecessary administrative burdens that interfere with the time doctors can
give to patients. It requires all insurance companies to use uniform categories
for prior authorization requirements. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">My
primary care doc once said if we could do this, he’d “dance his happy dance.”
Federal law was a barrier in past years, but that was recently solved through a
court case.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
sales ban on flavored nicotine products, including all vapes plus menthol
cigarettes, also passed. Though these have been banned for kids, kids are
getting them from adult purchasers and use is exploding; the bill’s ban is
focused on the effort to enhance youth protection by blocking all sales. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">In
an unusual move, the Democratic caucus permitted its members to vote based on individual
decisions, so it was a much closer vote than typical contested topics, at 83-53. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">The
menthol ban was particularly controversial, and an amendment to remove it from
the bill only failed by a vote of 54-64.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Significant
bills pending on the House calendar that came out of committees this week
include these:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A
bill from my committee to formalize and reshape the emergency shelter program.
It sets a long-term policy goal of leaving no one behind to live on the streets;
creates a Task Force to work on parameters for the first steps; and sets a July,
2026 start date for the initial new structure. (All good.) </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">But
as we worked through the new bill under a tight time frame, more and more was
added to the mandates in statute for what the new program has to include. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">All
were things that expand the scope of anything we’ve done before – as well as
that will massively expand costs. The administration’s rough estimate is in the
$50 million range. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Just
as with the tobacco bill (which will cost up to $14 million due to lost
revenue), that doesn’t need to be addressed in the current budget since it
doesn’t take effect until next year’s budget. “Let the next legislature figure
the money part out.” I voted no.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
bill that first proposed major expansion groups for Medicaid is now pared down
to require development of a cost and feasibility proposal. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">The
one part it retained is the financial support for those who turn 65 or become
disabled and lose existing coverage when they go onto Medicare. This is an
incorporation of the bill that I introduced to protect low-income seniors who
have been abandoned by all prior reforms. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">How
much of that new support survives the budget balancing process is yet to be
seen. Many of this bills that came out of committees this week have yet to go
through the “money” committees (taxes and spending.)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Another
health care bill will add to regulation of pharmacy benefit managers: the
companies that serve as go-betweens to set price deals for insurance companies
and drug manufacturers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“Neonics”
is the shorthand for a pesticide used to protect seeds but that are believed to
harm the environment and in particular, the fragile bee population. Their use
for crops would be banned under H.706. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">There
are lots of concerns about access to alternative seeds, given our small state
market, but the bill mirrors the ban and the 2027 timeline that New York has
passed. Given their market power, I’m good with it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
annual update of laws for our “tax and regulate” cannabis market includes a
problematic expansion to allow the medical-card program to include all cannabis
outlets. This could vastly expand the places where those under age 21 who have
medical needs can make purchases, with some significant resulting risks. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">It
needs an amendment to require regulation on that issue, or I can’t support it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
alcohol law update is a major disappointment to me, because despite all the
discussion about protecting kids from nicotine, the committee with the
jurisdiction over this bill refused a health policy addition requested by my
Human Services committee to protect youth. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Two
years ago, we made it legal for convenience store to sell those single-serve
spirits that include the same kind of youth-appealing fruit flavors as nicotine
vapes. Now in some places we see them turning up in bins next to the candy bars
at the checkout. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">A
peach-mango-vodka drink in a can may be side-by-side with its look-a-like
flavored peach-mango iced tea. I had a youthful-looking friend go to a local
store and buy one of each, together, and he wasn’t carded. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">My
Human Services committee’s request -- the one that was rejected – would have
created a small level of protection: prohibit alcoholic drinks to be displayed mixed
in among non-alcohol products.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Expect
to hear much more about H.687, a controversial approach to addressing how to
balance reform to permit requirements for urgently needed housing construction
with maintaining our environmental protections. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">A
proposal supported by a group from all parties and the governor did not move
forward; instead, this version came out of committee on a partisan vote despite
a claim that it is a compromise.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Another
significant controversy will play out when H.289 gets to the floor on revising
the state renewable energy standard to expedite achieving 100% renewables in 10
years. The Joint Fiscal Office first estimated it would cost $1 billion over
that time to implement. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">It
revised its report this past week to an estimate of between $150 million and
$450 million, but added, “due to various unknowns – potential technological
advances, changes in demand for electricity, adaptations in the ISO-New England
grid, actions of Vermont’s utilities in future years, etc. – considerable
uncertainty regarding the overall cost and impact on the State budget </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">remains.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A
sample of bills moving forward with broad support: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">H.173,
making it a crime to manipulate a child for the purpose of sexual conduct;
H.614, addressing land improvement fraud and timber trespass; H.657, updating
communications taxes and fees; <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Also,
H.702 on improving government accountability; and H.868 for the annual funding
of roads and bridges (yes, including, at last, Route 12 from Cumberland Farms
on North Main in Northfield on through Berlin to Montpelier.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">H.871
moves work forward on planning how to address the funding needs for a huge
backlog of school construction/rehab, while H.873 attempts a compromise on how
to move forward on testing schools for PCBs; <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">H.875
establishes uniform ethics codes for state and municipal officials; H.121 addresses
data privacy; H.707 focuses on workforce expansion and development; and H.622
updates reimbursement fees for Emergency Medical Services. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
agriculture committee apparently has less urgent work to do than others. It
took testimony on multiple separate days to establish a state mushroom (in line
with our state flower, bird, fish, mineral, pie and so forth.) </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">It
was a learning tool for a group of schoolkids. All fine and good if you spend a
couple of hours to do it. This was a bit much.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Aptos; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Thank you for the
honor of serving you. Please reach out to Rep. Ken Goslant (</span></i><span style="font-family: "Aptos",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Aptos; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="mailto:kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a></span><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Aptos; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">) or me (</span></i><span style="font-family: "Aptos",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Aptos; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="mailto:adonahue@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">adonahue@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a></span><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Aptos; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">) at any time with questions, concerns or input. </span></i>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-48175185199282080172024-02-24T12:47:00.000-08:002024-02-24T12:47:59.244-08:00February 24, 2024 Legislative Update<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Urgency
versus deliberation. Inclusion versus inaction. Complexity versus fairness. Unintended
consequences. Some of these real-life conflicts in the process of lawmaking are
front-and-center before us in the issues we will debate in the weeks ahead.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A
report updating the progress of implementation of last year’s Clean Heat
Standard bill makes some of these tensions dramatically clear. That was the
bill that requires a financially-forced transition away from fossil fuel
heating sources. Some believed it would be unsustainably costly; others that it
was essential to address climate change; and others also believed it was being
imposed far too rapidly.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Public Utility Commission, working on the first phase to develop the rules that
will be brought to the legislature for approval in 2025, had a message in its
“check-in” status report this year. The executive summary is worth directly
quoting.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“…[M]ost
participants have expressed serious misgivings that the quality of the rule and
the success of its implementation will suffer as a result of the aggressive
schedule required by Act 18…[It] sets such an untenable pace that it will be
extremely challenging for the Commission,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">the
Equity Advisory Group, and the Technical Advisory Group to carry out their
responsibilities<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">in
a manner that allows time for deliberative process, thoughtful input from all
stakeholders, and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">sufficient
public participation to design such a transformative, first-of-its-kind, highly
complex,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">and
technical program. The Commission shares stakeholders’ serious concerns that
any draft rule … will suffer from the haste demanded [which] … allots mere
months to the creation of an unprecedented, complex program with the potential
for unintended consequences that impact the lives of all Vermonters…” The full
report can be found at:</span> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/Checkback-report-1-FINAL.pdf<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There
is no indication that the legislature will agree to any delay. Instead, we are
now moving ahead on a new initiative to change our current Renewable Energy
Standard to require 100 percent renewable sources by 2035. That, according to some
testimony, will cost Vermonters $1 billion over the next 10 years.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It
does respond to a criticism over both the Clean Heat Standard and our recent
past targets to significantly increase electric vehicle use: the facts that shifts
to electricity result in demands that our current electric grid can’t handle,
and production of more electricity requires use of more fossil fuels and thus
also increases greenhouse gasses. So this next bill would block that impact by shifting
electric production to all renewable energy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
are acting in response to urgent issues but creating significant risks of
failure at multiple levels. Prominent in my mind has always been the size of
our state relative to the impacts caused by others, and thus the fact that when
we act alone – or are first off the block – we take on a disproportionate
burden that causes danger to our economic competitiveness and thus
sustainability as an affordable place to live.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Across
Other Issues<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
same goes for a plethora of issues in front of us. We are currently looking at
new tax sources to pay for ongoing costs of how we want to sustain the costs of
our state responsibilities.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
costs of education have skyrocketed this year, for reasons I’ve discussed
previously. News media have referenced an average 20% increase in property
taxes, but for Northfield it is 24% and for Berlin it is 26%. The legislature is
contemplating reducing that harm by raising new funds from elsewhere. There’s
also a lot of talk about reforming the whole funding structure and school spending,
but that talk has happened many times before, with only new bandages resulting.
The efforts at fairness over the years have led to incredible complexities.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There
are other reasons for wanting tax increases. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
locked in new burdens to the state budget and on wage-earners last year with
the mega-childcare support package and now are looking at needs for significantly
greater expenditures to address homelessness, record drug overdoses, mental
health, a juvenile justice system in crisis and health care underinsurance. We
suspended school construction contributions by the state in 2014 and the
infrastructure is crumbling; we hear regular complaints about conditions of
roads. The list goes on. These pressures are, at least, taking two other new
initiatives off the table for now: a paid leave program, and salary increases
for legislators.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But
who pays? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In
answer to the momentum to “tax the rich” I would warn that we already have one
of the most progressive tax rates in the country. The rich do pay more. At last
count, 16 percent of our state’s revenues from income tax were paid by the .17
percent wealthiest Vermonters. A full 25 percent of income tax revenues were
paid by the next wealthiest bracket, made up of only 2.7 percent of taxpayers. Ergo,
41 percent is paid by the fewer than three percent of Vermonters who represent
the wealthiest wage earners.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">If
we become radically out-of-step with states around us, economic drivers will
move out.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Policy
versus Cost<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
budget raises another question that legislators face based on different
committee assignments. Policy committees are expected to make budget
recommendations to help guide the decisions of the Appropriations Committee.
The Appropriation Committee then must balance among the competing “asks” and
also turn to the Ways and Means Committee, which controls tax policy. What will
be included in the budget, and when that exceeds the balanced-budget total
recommended by the governor, how will the added money be raised?</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As
a member of the policy committee which oversees all of human services, I’m told
that I should be recommending what would be needed to serve the wellbeing of
all Vermonters, regardless of total price. While we do identify by priority
levels, we are not expected to look at the bottom-line increases in the budget.
That’s because we don’t have the context of the other parts of the budget, nor
the decisions about the total taxes that will be raised to be available to pay
for it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">If
I vote now for ideal policy – regardless of cost – wouldn’t it be duplicative
to vote against the future budget, no matter what taxes it requires? Usually, I
think not since I can argue the money should have come from other budget lines
rather than increased taxes. This year, knowing that we are dealing with
revenue downfalls, that doesn’t seem legitimate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Nicotine<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A
similar issue has already been through my committee and will be up for a full
floor vote this coming week: the clamping down on flavored vapes and menthol
cigarettes. As a public health policy, I voted in support of the bill; our
committee vote was 10-0-1. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Vape
products are getting into the hands of schoolkids because adults are buying
them for them. These are incredibly addictive, and we know that the majority of
lifetime nicotine addiction occurs if it starts at a young age. Menthol, by
blunting the harshness of tobacco, also increases the appeal. If adults are the
suppliers, it seems that we need to take these specific products off the adult
market in order to protect kids.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But
we didn’t look much at the budget consequences. That wasn’t our jurisdiction. The
Ways and Means Committee looked at it last week and it will likely end up
costing some $14 million to implement in direct lost tax revenue. That
committee supported it on a 7-5 vote, and pushed back the implementation date by
a year, to January of 2026. That’s a sly move: it means we can ignore it for
the upcoming budget year, since the lost revenue won’t begin until halfway
through fiscal year 2026’s budget. Clearly, the long-range cost benefits are
likely massive in future saved health care costs, but that’s more amorphous. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In
the shorter term, that $14 million annually is equal to thousands of nights of
emergency shelter stays; hundreds of new recovery beds for those fighting
addictions; one major school renovation every year; or more than half the
annual cost of the universal school meals program we passed last year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Feed
our schoolchildren, or protect them from nicotine addiction? These may not be
good things to present as an example of choices. But one way or another,
government needs to make choices.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There
are some choices I make on bills every day that I see as decisions that clearly
represent my values, and thereby, represent the choices you made in the
aggregate by electing me as a person closest to meeting your own values.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">They
are not all as clear, and that is why your input is so important to me. Please
reach out, especially during the coming town meeting break. I’ll be at town
meetings in both Berlin and Northfield, so it’s a great time to catch me for
direct conversation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Thank
you for your support. You can always reach me at </span></i><a href="mailto:adonahue@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">adonahue@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">, and Rep. Ken
Goslant at </span></i><a href="mailto:kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. It is an honor
to serve you.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-17896612824951942112024-02-10T09:48:00.000-08:002024-02-10T09:48:05.469-08:00February 10, 2024 Legislative Update<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Now
that the governor’s proposed budget is before the legislature, my committee has
pivoted to a deep dive into the Human Services elements of the budget.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
are all facing an average property tax increase of close to 20% on the one part
of the state’s overall budget that the legislature has little control over:
education spending. This is adding to the pressure on the Democratic majority
to hold down increases in the general fund budget, yet additional new taxes are
still under consideration to pay for other increases. The governor’s budget
holds growth to match existing increases in revenue, but in reality, that will
result in some cuts in services because just paying overhead absorbs those
revenues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">That’s
the dilemma our school boards have faced, and their response has been to
increase budgets to meet perceived actual needs. The tally from around the
state is a proposed $240 million increase in budgets, compared to a usual
average increase of about $30 million. While local voters approve their own
budgets, each district also bears a big part of the costs of what every
district does in combination.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">How
Did We Get Here?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There
are multiple factors, ranging from inflation to the desire to backfill lost
federal bonus dollars. One of them, however, was directly tied to the change in
“pupil weights” the legislature made last year. One student does not equal one
student, when it comes to counting them for the purpose of the state’s
contribution to a local budget. They are “weighted” based on the fact that some
students cost more to educate in order to spread the statewide funds equitably
based on actual costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Towns
such as Berlin and Northfield did not see any significant change, but some
wealthier districts lost pupil counts. They were protected from mega-one year
tax increases by a cap set on how much would be attributed to them, so that the
increase would be spread over five years. There was an unexpected result of
that 5% cap. Other school districts took advantage of the cap to bolster their
own budgets, knowing that they could go above 5% without increasing the local
share. That was a big contributor to the $240 million statewide increase.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It’s
important to note that neither the Northfield nor Berlin districts did this and
as a result, will not be harmed by the current legislation that is attempting
to fix it. That bill is now moving through the legislature, and towns that made
larger budget increases will have to pay more on their own; the hope is that
they will whittle some of that down, with the result of reducing that 20%
statewide increase at least by a bit.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
State Budget<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">While
the education budget is in the hands of the cumulative votes of school
districts, the rest of the state’s spending falls in the lap of the
legislature, which faces all the same cost pressures. Do we cut services to
balance the budget? Do we increase taxes to keep all else level? Do we meet new
needs by greater tax increases? Which are needs, and which are merely desires?
How do we choose among these priorities?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">This
is the time when I truly despair in facing my own committee’s work. The fact
is, we do have real needs that are not being addressed. Our committee has the
job of identifying the amount of money needed to address them, and then leaving
the Appropriations Committee to choose from what can or cannot be down. Approps
must weigh those against all the other components of the budget: funding to
address climate change, the judiciary (which still has a major COVID backlog),
all of health care, investments to improve the economy, just to name a few.
Next week, we face a bill that will add major costs to electric generation in
the important interest of achieving cleaner energy production. Where does that
fall on the difficult priority item list?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Homelessness,
with increases that have come about primarily because of decades of lack of
maintaining adequate housing stock, is high on our agenda. Virtually everyone
agrees that the top priority is increasing the backlog in housing unit construction.
But that takes time, and it is how to bridge the gap in the interim that is in
dispute.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
governor’s budget proposes to eliminate open access under the “cold weather
exception.” It would keep the exemption only for households with children,
adults over age 65, third trimester pregnancy, and those on disability income. The
proposal goes further than just a return to pre-COVID criteria, because the
28-day per year limit would be reinstated, but the special 84-day limit that applies
in certain catastrophic situations would be eliminated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">These
limits only apply to the “emergency housing” criteria, meaning receiving a
voucher to stay in a hotel. There are no such exclusions for staying in an
emergency shelter. A major problem, however, in that we do not have enough
shelter beds to accommodate everyone who could otherwise be left on the
streets. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
governor’s budget adds millions to increase these shelter capacities, but even
those take time to open. By next winter – even under the assumption that some
folks can find housing on a friend or relative’s couch – we would likely be
seeing more people with no access to shelter at all. There are some being
turned away on the coldest days even this winter, for lack of capacity. Experts
do agree that mental health needs, addiction disorders and the like contribute
to the challenge of stable housing but are not the primary reason for our
crisis, which is simply not having enough housing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">If
this was our only state need, we could probably find a way forward. By holding
the budget at a level of growth that is below inflation growth factors, numerous
agencies funded by the state are effectively facing cuts. These include our
skilled nursing and home health agencies, the agencies which provide mental
health and development disability supports, and support to children through
such as our parent-child centers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As
with schools, we have some staggering and critical “deferred maintenance” costs.
The IT systems supporting child welfare, for example, are the very oldest and
most antiquated in the country! A worker addressing a child taken from a home
for abuse can’t open just one computer file to check on history or even the
child’s current status. It puts kids in danger, and there is almost certainly a
tie to the fact that we have a rate of removing children from families that is
high above the national average.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Our
juvenile justice system is scrambling without the capacity to provide secure
places for children in major crises with high levels or risks of violence. That
is driving plans to build new institutional beds for them in a way that I
seriously fear is a pendulum going out of control in the opposite direction. In
the next two years, plans are rolling out that will add 42 locked institutional
beds to hold or treat those ages 19 and younger, contrasted to about 24
currently.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I
am not trying to make a case for major increases in spending. We can’t achieve
that. But it does means assessing every expenditure carefully and identifying
the truly highest needs. One item that has laid our budget so thin this year
has been decisions made over the past several years, such as the massive
investments in making childcare more affordable. It was an important investment
that had wide support, but that I voted against because of the weight of
contrasting needs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">And
every citizen and each legislator representing their constituents sees the
priorities differently. Democracy is about coming to sometimes unhappy
outcomes. The weight of statewide voter opinion right now – based on elections
– is to spend more to achieve a greater number of priorities. I believe we need
to be far more discriminating in how we spend tax dollars, but I have my own
priorities that cost money, and if each of everyone’s were fully met, we’d
collapse financially as a state.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Based
on strong constituent input, one of mine is to reduce taxation of military
retiree benefits, which comes at a very small loss to the state’s tax revenue.
In the latest survey data, Vermont ranked a dismal 50 out of 50 among states
with financial stability for military retirees. These folks are often still in
prime wage-earning years and can fill critically needed occupation gaps and
contribute to the tax base if we don’t chase them away.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">My
other is the Medicare cliff: the way Vermont drops health care support like a
hot potato when someone with low income turns 65. There was an excellent news
piece describing this last week in VPR, which you can read at: </span><a href="https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2024-02-02/capitol-recap-some-low-income-vermonters-face-sudden-spike-in-health-care-costs-when-they-turn-65"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2024-02-02/capitol-recap-some-low-income-vermonters-face-sudden-spike-in-health-care-costs-when-they-turn-65</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Thank
you for the honor of representing you. Please reach out anytime to me
(adomahue@leg.state.vt.us) or Rep. Ken Goslant (kgoslant@leg.state.vt.gov) with
questions or input. You can receive my biweekly reports by email request.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-31803997400761897192024-01-28T06:53:00.000-08:002024-01-28T06:53:44.954-08:00January 28, 2024 Legislative Update<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">An
old adage says, “a good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied.” My
Human Services Committee voted 10-0-1 this past week to pass a ban on all flavored
vape products, which are getting kids rapidly hooked on nicotine. The ban is
effective next January. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Check
in at any school. Marketers even sell hoodies that have tubes in the hood
strings so that they can vape surreptitiously. Why ban an “adult-only” product
when it’s already illegal to sell to those under 21? The data says kids aren’t
buying nicotine products from stores. They are getting them, overwhelmingly,
from adults.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
bill came to us from the Senate, and it banned many more products from sales in
Vermont. It included all menthol cigarettes (they reduce the harshness of the
tobacco and make it easier to take up) and all other flavored tobacco products
(pipe tobacco, etc.) We removed the adult-use ban on the “all other” tobacco products,
where there was no evidence it has drawn kids in. We did also increase the
penalty on those who give access to those under 21.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
were split on the issue of menthol cigarettes. (The federal government already
bans other flavored cigarettes.) The evidence wasn’t as strong on whether it
has special appeal to youth. In addition, adults in minority groups prefer
menthol. Were we discriminating against them for their particular flavor of
choice in contrast to other adults? Yet some in those groups urged the ban,
saying their members were targeted by tobacco companies to get them addicted in
the first place. The compromise was to defer that ban for an added six months,
until July of 2025, and to ask the Health Equity Advisory Council to weigh in.
We can repeal it next year, before it takes effect, if that is the
recommendation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
bill has to go through the House tax committee before it gets to the floor. My
committee makes public health policy; they make tax policy. The estimate is
that we will lose about $4 or $5 million in tax revenue with the vape ban, and
perhaps double that when the menthol ban goes into effect.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A
big struggle for me was the question of consistency. We have two other
“adult-only” substances: cannabis and alcohol. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We only recently legalized cannabis, saying “prohibition
doesn’t work.” Two years ago, we allowed convenience stores to start selling
fruit-juice-flavored spirits. Alcohol companies have jumped on board, and you
can now see products like “Sunny D” spiked with alcohol on the same shelves. Surely,
this, too, is particularly appealing to youth, and alcohol misuse is a major
social problem, scooping up kids at even earlier ages than vapes. Why target
one substance for a new prohibition. I had an “aha” moment from one person’s
testimony, who pointed out that we do ban some of those other products when
they are higher risk, such as limiting the percentages of alcohol or THC. In
the same way, we are further regulating nicotine, not banning it, regarding the
highest risk types.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">However,
I argued to tighten up regulations to protect youth on the other products as
well. The other committee members strongly supported this in principle, but not
under our House rules, which carve out “jurisdiction” of subjects. The outcome
is that we are sending a strong Chair-to-Chair memo urging that the correct
committee looks closely at these issues as they take up related bills this
year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Our
committee was flooded with hundreds of emails urging us to pass the Senate
bill, and almost an equal number opposing it. Almost all were the identical
message written by lobbying organizations. Each of us did the same thing:
sorted through to find the ones from our own constituents and deleted the rest.
(Some were even from out-of-state.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I
received some from my district on each side of the issue, and a few that were
written personally, along with several phone messages. Getting views from
residents of Berlin and Northfield is really important to me, and I appreciate
everyone who contacted me, even if I didn’t end up fully sharing your
perspective. I tried to answer each individually, but some phone messages came
to the statehouse without return numbers and some emails with only the lobby
group’s return address. Alas, with cell phones, the days of help from the phone
book are gone.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">This
week’s biggest floor action was the budget adjustment act, which increased the
current year’s budget by $31 million. Supporters argued that the budget was
still balanced, since state revenues had increased slightly over the
projections from last May. The problem is that the coming year’s budget will be
much tighter: less revenue as related to ongoing needs plus inflation. The
governor presented the fiscal year 2025 budget this week with a mere 3.5%
increase, keeping it balanced without new taxes. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
budget adjustment is a tool to shift money midway through the year if less was spent
in one account and more is needed in another. But if anything is added to the
base it limits our opportunity to identify the greatest needs as we work
through next year’s full budget, because we have added $31 million that is
locked into the “adjustment” lines items.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There
was a lot of pollical posturing on the floor saying those voting “no” would be
denying help to their neighbors for flood relief funds. Voting “no” actually
was only to send the bill back to remove some increases, not necessarily flood
aid.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Most
in contention was the extension and major increase in funding for the motel
program for homeless individuals. There was a hue and cry about throwing
children and the elderly on the streets on April 30. That was the extension we
voted on last spring for the phase-out of the COVID program. About half of
those 1,600 or so households have not found housing yet.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">That
wasn’t the key issue, however. What the bill does is to reverse the decision
last spring to end the open-door COVID policy for those who were <i>NOT</i> in
those vulnerable groups and to return to pre-existing criteria. It reverses the
phase-out and returns to the COVID emergency standards. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">For
example, until the COVID exemption, those who were not in emergency
circumstances had time limits on emergency housing. The exception was for
“adverse weather,” providing shelter for anyone in need during the winter
months regardless of the reason for having lost housing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Time
limits are now gone, through June 30, and the adverse weather policy applies at
any temperature.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">This
topic is in my committee’s jurisdiction, and I supported extending the existing
protection for those more vulnerable folks that we were housing based on COVID.
However, we heard nothing about the proposed policy change to re-open to all groups
coming in, without limits, until we were asked to vote on it half an hour
before it was proposed to the Appropriations Committee, which then itself had
only a half an hour to review it. It was all vetted in private leadership
conversation, not within the committees. The scope of the housing change was
not fully explained on the floor, and by House protocols, I could not get up to
speak against a decision of my own committee. Both Rep. Ken Goslant and I voted
against the budget adjustment as presented, but it passed on a 112-24 vote. It
now goes to the Senate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
updated bottle bill – vetoed last spring by the governor – only received 17 of
the required 20 votes needed for an override in the Senate. Almost as many
Democrats as Republicans voted against the override. Many of us would like to
expand our very successful deposit policy to include more glass and plastics
but the bill also completely changed our current system. I voted for the bill
and the override in the House, but with a great deal of trepidation over the changes.
I am somewhat relieved that the override failed in the Senate. It clears the
path to expanding the bottle bill more in line with the existing system.<o:p></o:p></span></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-44267269630903866882024-01-14T08:23:00.000-08:002024-01-14T08:23:06.611-08:00January 14, 2024 Legislative Update<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Legislative
Update<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Rep.
Anne Donahue<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Jan.
14, 2024<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">The
major action on the House floor last week was passage of the “safe injection”
site bill.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It
legalizes the operation of facilities where people can bring illegal drugs to
be used under the supervision of health professionals. The purpose is for the
ability to have an overdose addressed rapidly.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Only
one other state has passed such a law, and its own center has not yet opened.
Several are operating in Canada. Our Health Commissioner testified in my
committee that the research was insufficient to establish that they are a
benefit: we’re putting passengers on a plane that is still under construction.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">My
greatest fear is that it will cost us more lives than it will save. The public
messaging is that there are “safe” (and legal) ways to use drugs. After all,
the state is creating the funding for them. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How many more people will feel less afraid to try
highly addictive substances? We don’t know. Both Rep. Ken Goslant and I voted
“no.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There
was a bright side to the 2-day debate. Those who opposed the bill identified
some serious gaps. Those who supported the bill could have passed it “as is” because
they represent a (veto-proof) super-majority, but were willing to listen and
accept amendments to strengthen protections. One of our Independent members
commented on the floor the next day about how refreshing it was to see
collaboration, despite disagreement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As
a result, the bill added the requirement that local community leaders must vote
to allow a center before it opens there, and that strengthen requirements for
the staffing of such sites. The bill did require development of operating
guidelines that a center must meet to receive approval to open. But once
approved, there was nothing that required ongoing compliance with the
guidelines. I drafted an amendment that would terminate the legal immunity of a
center if it fails to meet good faith compliance, and that was also accepted.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Left
unresolved was the concern about the lack of any age restrictions or special
guardrails when a minor comes to a center to use drugs. The bill now goes to
the Senate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In
what feels like a radically inconsistent direction, my committee is working on
a Senate bill that would make all flavored tobacco products (cigarettes and
vapes, and including menthol flavors) illegal to sell in Vermont. The purpose
is to protect youth, who have latched on to the appealing vape products despite
the fact that it is already illegal to sell to minors. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
would, in effect, shift from a “tax and regulate” system for the products into
a prohibition: an exact opposite of the successful lobbying just a few years
ago to change from prohibition to “tax and regulate” to permit adult choices to
use cannabis. The slogan then was, “prohibition doesn’t work.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">While
alcohol is highly regulated, we also recently began permitting single-serving
products to be sold at any store. Ergo, the new market in convenience stores
for appealing, flavored alcoholic beverages right by the check-out… while
tobacco must be inaccessible except by a clerk.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Tobacco
kills in huge numbers, over time. Drugs are taking lives all over the state
through immediate overdoses. But alcohol misuse has never changed in its level
of serious harm. There is a strong parallel to the issue of prohibition versus
regulated adult use versus protection against youth addiction for all of these
mind-altering substances. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I
agree on how crucial it is to prevent the targeting of youth for these
enticingly flavored tobacco products (“cotton candy,” is one), likely resulting
in lifelong nicotine addictions. But given existing gaps in protection
regarding cannabis and alcohol targeted to enticing young users, I will be
struggling with whether I can get on board with this bill unless we also
address some of those gaps in other adult use substances.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It
was great to see Rep. Ken Goslant’s bill to address one of the (many)
unintended consequences of our efforts to remove adult criminal processes for those
teens who need stronger guidance rather than punitive measures. Our state’s
attorney has told us that high-level drug dealers are now focusing on
recruiting help from teens, since they will be sanctioned less severely if
caught dealing. Ken’s bill would make it a specific crime to “employ, hire,
use, persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor” to sell drugs. It’s one of
many efforts this year to respond to a plethora of unintended consequences
being seen from a variety of laws passed over the past several years that are
helping to drive increases in crime rates.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
legislature and the administration continue to struggle with addressing how to
restructure the ways we help protect Vermonters who lose housing during this
time of a severe housing shortage. Increased efforts over the past six months
have reduced by almost half the number of existing households living in state-funded
emergency hotel rooms, but new needs have continued to grow.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
know some of the hotels exploited the COVID crisis since the state had its back
against a wall, but our committee heard one budget figure last week that was
shocking. Many of them have been charging the state a rate that is much higher
than the standard rate for anyone else walking in the door, an average of $132
per night. At the same time, they don’t include the amenities you or I would
get if we were paying a lower rate: room cleaning, breakfast buffets, etc. –
and the higher cost includes none of the social service supports these folks
need to stabilize their lives.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">By
aggressively clamping down on this, funds can be freed up to transition to
shelter programs that offer direct assistance to people in moving out of the
emergency system more rapidly. My committee will also be beginning work on a
bill to reform the entire “general assistance” program for housing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I
was thrilled to hear a new report from our off-session Government
Accountability Committee, because its recommendations tackle some issues that
have frustrated me for years. A few examples:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Every
year, with complicated issues that we can’t address in the short time
available, we direct that the administration to prepare an in-depth report, or
we create a study committee of legislators to work off-session to take
testimony and recommend next steps. (Or some combination of those.) All too
many times, these reports never even get read, let alone acted upon. New issues
take over a committee’s time, and the level of interest in last year’s issues
has dropped.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Another
example: We pass laws that the administration is supposed to implement. But
does it always actually happen? We don’t follow up to find out; there is no
tracking mechanism in place (unless we asked for another of those reports that
take resources to write and that don’t get read…) And when we draft new laws,
do we actually look into the history of what was done before? Often, not.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Then,
there is the budget. Every year, instead of discussing all of the funding of
all of the state’s programs, the focus is almost exclusively on what are termed
the “ups and downs.” Where is the governor proposing increases, and where is
the governor proposing cuts; do we agree or do we want different priorities
funded? The big picture is simply too big to review… but we need to create a
better overview mechanism if we are going to be accountable to Vermonters for
how their taxes are spent. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">You
can see the full report online at
legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/SGAC-Report-Final-2023.12.13.pdf.
Hopefully, we as the legislature will also pay attention to reading and
implementing items in this report.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">My
bill requiring prominent notice to those renting a lot for a mobile home if it
has a known flooding risk has been reviewed by the Housing Committee and will
likely be addressed as part of a package of flood-related bills. The bill I
introduced about businesses maintaining cash options for customers will be
reviewed in the Commerce Committee next week.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">What
I am most pleased about, however, is that the issue of seniors who go onto
Medicare and lose significant financial support for their health care as a
result (the opposite of what we assume and would want!) has become a priority
in the Health Care Committee, with testimony beginning next week. I introduced
a bill on this last year, co-sponsored by a Democratic colleague to show
bipartisan support, and it has gained significant momentum.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Thank
you for the honor of representing you. Please be in touch with me (</span></i><a href="mailto:adonahue@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">adonahue@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">) or Rep. Goslant
(</span></i><a href="mailto:kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">) at any time. You
can access all of my legislative updates at
representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-57710345301236058492023-12-21T05:10:00.000-08:002023-12-21T05:10:37.919-08:00Legislative Preview, 2024<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Every year, the <i>Times-Argus</i> asks
local legislators to share their priorities for the legislative session ahead,
and the first half of this preview report is a copy of that – a fairly quick
read. After that are some details. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">If you don’t like to delve into numbers,
stop after the preview! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I see the overall role of government, and
therefore our necessary priority, as funding essential services at a cost that
we can afford. Affordability does not mean by personal perception. It means not
letting the state economy crash, hurting us all but those who struggle
financially the most.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The details that bedevil us? What are “essential
services,” which is a subjective decision. What is affordable for economic
stability, which is more objective, if we are following fiscal expertise. For
example, our state fiscal analysts tell us we are still facing about a 50/50
chance of a recession in the near future.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">My fiscal priority this year is to push
back against the momentum to increase new initiatives. These have been caused
in part by the number of new legislators this session who have only lived
through the recent years of unprecedented federal funds flowing into Vermont. The
desires are good ones, but we have added major new programs already and
sustaining them will be extremely challenging as we return to more modest
revenues. We need to stabilize and meet existing needs before we add more.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Within existing core responsibilities,
costs are rising more steeply than the governor’s plan to increase base budget
spending by only three percent. His may thus be an unrealistic goal. We are
already locked in to a 15% increase in health costs and a four percent pay act increase
plus a new paid family leave program for state employees. We have the inflation
jump of the past year, retirement fund obligations, and further budget increases
to pay for last year’s bill to significantly expand support for childcare. We
also need to maintain climate change mitigation efforts and address the
unresolved homeless motel program. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">All of those require more than three
percent growth, so deep cuts would be required in other vital services if we
restrict ourselves to this; even more reason that it is critical to avoid any
and all new initiatives.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Education costs are predicted to increase
by 20% due to some similar pressures, adding to the need for fiscal restraint.
Once again, health costs are a driver that will not change without more
aggressive reforms. Economic stability also demands a priority of ongoing state
intervention in grappling with the critical housing shortage and labor force
recruitment challenges. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I have two priorities for the budgets in
existing essential services. In health care, we need to stop abandoning low-income
senior citizens when they go on Medicare and face a cost cliff due to our drop
in state support. For children in trouble, we need to rebuild foster care,
mental health treatment, and treatment capacity for youth violence.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">My policy priority continues to be the
full incorporation of mental health into our health care system, which will
bring better access and better care. We also need to reassess our criminal
justice system so that it does a better job of protecting citizens while also
respecting civil rights and avoiding measures that increase cycles of
criminality.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Fiscal Details<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Our December presentation from the Joint
Fiscal Office consultant was a summary of the national economy and implications
for our own. Their take on it is an improving economy with the rate of
inflation down, solid growth, and low unemployment. Consumers see the economy
with a great deal more pessimism yet spending trends (which drive the economy)
do not reflect that pessimism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There are also “mounting headwinds,” with
the risk of a recession dropping but still at about a 50/50 chance, and with
low unemployment creating a risk of wage-price spirals. That’s when wages
increase in order to attract workers, but then drive increased prices for
products. Vermont’s worker gap far exceeds the national average, with fewer
than 7,000 unemployed versus 17,500 job openings, which often means the market
is even tighter than it appears due to lack of enough of the matches between
skills and job openings. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As reflected in some further data, our
continuing demographic challenge makes the picture even worse, because we will
be losing numbers in our existing labor force in the years to come. Between
2010 and 2022, we already lost five percent in the ratio of labor force to
population. However, the 35-54 age group – those moving into peak earning years
(Interpretation: tax revenue) – dropped from 32 to 24 % of our population, and
incoming the future incoming work force – those 0-14 – dropped from 20 to 15%. Those
soon-to-leave the workforce, ages 55-64, increased from 9 to 15%, and those
already into retirement years, 65 and older, increased from 13 to 20%.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Housing<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The shortage of housing didn’t come out of
the blue. We’ve sharply dropped in construction of new units since the 2008
recession. Multiple factors have made it much worse, and we are not remotely
close to closing the gap, without even including possible population increases
or the loss in housing units from age/decay over time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A healthy housing market is defined as
having a 3% vacancy rate in owned housing and 5% in rental housing. In Washington
County, the rate for owned homes is 1.57% and for rental housing, it’s 1.65% --
well below the state average and on par with Chittenden County.</span> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There are many
fascinating details about individual community and county data for those who
enjoy knowing that kind of detail about their communities on the website,
https://www.housingdata.org/profile/housing-needs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The deficit in current construction of new
units is a whopping 4.7 (based on a 5-year average.) What that means is that
for every new home or apartment unit currently being built, we actually need
almost five more to be built if we were to close the vacancy gap. This is
despite the $268 million the state (with a great deal of the recent federal
money) has invested in the past two years to support what would normally be a
private market process for housing construction. Much of that is still in the
pipeline for the shovels to actually hit the ground.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Other data I’ve discussed earlier in this
update can be reviewed there and in much greater detail on these sites:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">https://accd.vermont.gov/press-releases/webinar-housing-deficit-data-presentation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">https://ljfo.vermont.gov/publications/legislative-briefing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Education<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">When a system changes, there are usually
winners and losers, and that will be the case with the new method for assessing
the costs of educating out K-12 students. Pupil weighting was revised last year
to more closely match the actual costs of educating children in different
communities. One child in a school does not count as one child for “pupil
weight,” or cost, for the purpose of how much the school district receives from
the Education Fund. High school students cost more than elementary, for
example, so they are weighted more and school districts’ costs are adjusted
differently if the elementary-to-high school ratio is different.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The two largest categories that gained
“weight” in the new counts were low-income children and those with English as a
second language, with a new rural school component as well. A more detailed
explanation of pupil weighting and changes can be found at:</span> <a href="https://ljfo.vermont.gov/assets/Subjects/Issue-Briefs-Related-to-Education-Finance/8e94aa83db/GENERAL-371568-v3-Understanding_Pupil_Weights-v3.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">https://ljfo.vermont.gov/assets/Subjects/Issue-Briefs-Related-to-Education-Finance/8e94aa83db/GENERAL-371568-v3-Understanding_Pupil_Weights-v3.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Berlin and Northfield will be affected
differently. Based on the early estimates, Northfield will see little impact
from the change, because current weighting of students in the Paine Mountain
district will likely be fairly close to the new counts. Berlin will gain some,
because the pupil count in its in the Washington Central district will increase
given its higher number of pupils with a higher weighting.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Policy Bills<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There are a record-breaking number of new
policy bills being introduced by individual legislators this session, creating
a big and likely wasted workload for our legislative counsel drafters. Why
wasted? In the second year of a biennium, most of the legislature’s time is
taken up by finishing last year’s “must do” work and addressing this year’s required
tasks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Bills that were taken up last year, but
didn’t make the deadline, will be up first for consideration, and bills that
passed one body but not the other are yet to be reviewed. In my committee, for
example, we’re already getting heavy lobbying about the ban on flavored vaping
products that passed the Senate last year, and we didn’t get to yet.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">By the time new bills get introduced and
allocated to committees this year, there will be virtually no time for them to
be addressed. That’s not to say they don’t have merit – but a lot of ideas may
have merit without beating out the competition for limited time. We had an
unusually high turnover in the House this session, which likely accounts for
some unrealistic expectations. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ergo,
this year more than ever, if you see a headline about a new bill – check in
with me or Rep. Goslant about whether its odds of getting action before you get
too excited about it (pro or con.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">My bill initiatives are fairly modest. I’m
mostly focused on having the Senate pass my right-to-repair bill for consumers
in its broader form. The House passed the agricultural equipment component last
year. I’m also hoping for some action on my existing bill to increase health
care support for low-income elders who lose coverage when they move to
Medicare.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A few short bills (some requested by
constituents) address narrower needs: a notice requirement when renting a
mobile home lot that is in a designated flood plain; a requirement that
businesses maintain cash payment options; and public meeting access protections
in our evolving digital world. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I’ve also been deeply involved in a
personal effort to identify burial locations for those who died at our state
hospital in the late 1800s and 1900s before the laws required hometowns to take
responsibility. Some were buried in unknown locations on the grounds, and it
turns out that may have happened at other state institutions as well. I’d like
to see an inventory done of such sites and some efforts to identify and protect
those that can be located.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">These are mostly in what are termed “short
form” bills, which are quick to draft, because they present the basic idea but
leave the concept to be fleshed out only after a committee has made a decision
to take it up.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As we begin the new session on January 3,
please remember to keep in touch with me and district-mate Rep. Ken Goslant
when you have questions or concerns to share. We are here to serve you and
listen to your voices. It is an honor to do so. Emails are </span></i><a href="mailto:adonahue@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">adonahue@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> and </span></i><a href="mailto:kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> All of my
updates, current and all through the past, are accessible at
representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-72663782992464500622023-06-22T06:35:00.005-07:002023-06-22T06:35:40.235-07:00June 22, 2023, Veto Session<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Legislative Update, Veto Session<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rep. Anne Donahue, with Rep. Ken Goslant</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">This year’s legislative session is
officially over with the completion last week of overrides votes on several
vetoes by the Governor. There were no great surprises because the Democrats
have a supermajority. That means having enough votes to override any veto. Both
Rep. Ken Goslant and I are scared by the outcome in terms of the cost increases.
We don’t think that increasing state spending by 13 percent, and raising taxes
to achieve it, is what Vermonters want to see.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">While most of the new initiatives
being funded are good ones, responsible budgeting is about living within one’s
means by setting priorities, not by just starting up anything one might want. I
was in the legislature the last time we had a recession. We – and that includes
a Democratic majority at that time – had to go through incredibly painful
decisions about layoffs and program cuts. The more we overinflate the budget
now, the deeper those cuts might be if the economic indicators before us for
the next several years hold true. A majority of current legislators haven’t
experienced that and instead have been here at a time of extraordinary surplus
revenues. The only budget decisions have been where to spend money, not where
to hold the line. And in this budget, spend we did.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">Nowhere is the challenge of cutting
something once it’s been created as evident this year as in addressing the
hotel program for those who are homeless. During the COVID emergency, group
emergency shelters that exposed multiple people could have led to disastrous
spread of virus. Separating people by using federal emergency money to place
them in hotel rooms made sense for everyone’s protection.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">It was an “everyone in the door”
effort, including eliminating the standard requirement for all subsidized
housing in Vermont that people contribute a third of their income – no matter
how small, but never more than a third – to their housing costs. Emergency use
of hotels or motels when shelters were full has always existed, but it was
time-limited and restricted to defined emergencies or to the “cold weather” exemption.
As a result of the unlimited access, the number of households receiving shelter
exploded over these past several years and it became a semi-permanent home for
many, not just a safety net for a month or two.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">Now that the emergency (and the
federal money) has ended, there has been outrage that these folks would be
thrown to the streets. That’s a very legitimate reaction. We created this reliance
on a program that exceeds any typical or reasonable approach to helping people
have safe housing. It was also destined to create a big number of people in
crisis all at once as it ends.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">We wanted people to make use of it
for our overall benefit; they did. Housing is exceptionally difficult to find
right now; it realistically cannot be found for several thousand people all
trying to find affordable options at the same time. But it’s a bad “program,”
if it can be called a program at all. There have been inadequate supports
beyond a roof over the heads of people, many of whom have serious struggles in
life coping skills in general. It hasn’t been a positive option for them, beyond
the question of costs. It also placed major burdens on communities like Berlin
that are hosting these hotels, which suddenly found themselves with large
groups of needy people, including that small minority who gum it up for
everyone else up by abusing it. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">So, what to do?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">Some more liberal legislators who
wanted the whole program extended threatened to support the governor’s veto in
order to demand a new budget with increased spending, by joining with
Republicans who were voting “no” because of overspending. Advocates, including
many who are living in or recently already lost hotel housing, were chanting
loudly from the public seating areas as we assembled for the one-day veto
session: “housing is a human right.” (They respectfully stopped shortly after
we began work.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">So, a deal was struck. It still
officially ends the open-door program on June 30, including not changing the
termination of hotel payments for those had already lost them this past month.
Those were the folks who did not have someone with a designated level of disability,
children, or a person over age 60 in their household. But it creates a special,
more gradual “off ramp” program for the households with that greater
vulnerability who are already there as of June 30. (Note that new folks are
still enrolling until that end date, since the old program doesn’t end until
then.) Between now and next April, the Agency of Human Services is tasked with
finding a housing option for each such household before terminating hotel
payments, working with case managers gradually over those interim months.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">There are a lot of great goals and
concepts for parameters set out in this new legislation. Unfortunately, none of
it – neither the protection for those vulnerable individuals, nor the assurance
of a program end in April nor the standards for participant compliance – are
worth the paper they are written on. This was a deal that saved face for both
sides: On one side, “we aren’t being mean and tossing people to the wolves, but
we have set limits”; on the other side, “we saved the day by keeping the
program going until everyone has replacement housing.” <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">It was my committee that reviewed the
bill, and I identified all the reasons that it actually has no assurance of
achieving either of those and has little likelihood of success. But I also
voted for it in my committee – it was an 11-0 vote – as well as on the floor. Why?
I do not believe in rejecting a proposal that attempts to solve a problem
unless I have a better alternative in mind that would address it. I don’t have
a solution for resolving this crisis, and we are the ones who created it. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">What are its failings? It’s a very
long list, but here are a few highlights that touch on them: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">It will depend on the ability to
hire additional staff for case management and for administrative tasks (we
piled on a vast amount of data demands for legislative oversight.) Has anyone
noticed we have a major workforce shortage, with every single business and
profession unable to fill essential positions? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">It lacks definitions and creates no
authority as to who will establish them. What is the meaning of “misconduct”
that will allow a discharge, and who determines whether that has occurred? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">How are criteria established for
whether someone met a mandate that they “participate in” their case management or
“engage in” their own independent search for housing?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">What does it mean that AHS must
offer “alternative housing” – which includes emergency shelters – before
someone can be cut off? If the offered alternative will only last a week before
the household will be homeless again, have we actually done anything to prevent
the identical outcome?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">Yet if it had said, “appropriate
housing,” who would have defined whether it is appropriate? (On the House
floor, the bill’s presenter already suggested that if the offer was in another
part of the state and the person had reasons for not wanting to go there, it
wouldn’t count as an offer even under the current language.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">Any decision can be appealed. On
the one hand, allowing an appeal from an arbitrary decision is legitimate. The
bill is rife with possibilities of arbitrary and inequitable application of the
undefined criteria. Yet open-ended appeals of legitimate decisions will cause
long delays in actual implementation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">It came with no cost estimate for
either the extension of hotel stays or the added services. It does set out the
funding as coming from shifting funds in the existing budget, not adding new
money. But any shift means something else – previously determined to be necessary
– will not be funded. There is a goal to re-negotiate rates with hotels (which
up until now, could name their own price) but there is no guarantee of success.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">The reality is that there is no
true end to it. Those still stranded in April (which could be almost as many as
those there on June 30) will be in front of us yet again. We created this crisis,
and we haven’t found a way to solve it. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">Perhaps we will make progress
between now and April, and perhaps those added months will give us time to
figure out some additional approaches. Let’s hope. We have put hundreds of
millions into developing new housing, some of which can move quickly; that
might also help.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">But make no mistake about it. The
housing crisis itself will ensure that new families will be in need as well.
The new compromise bill doesn’t touch that issue yet, not does it help those on
the streets today who relied on our COVID program but don’t meet the federal
disability, child, or “aged” categories.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">***<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">The other challenge was the issue
of childcare. The vast expansion of subsidies and state rates to providers was
a major part of the overall budget expansion and the reason for a new payroll
tax. I know of no one who disagreed with the need for major new investments to
support childcare. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">The issue was, by how much and how
quickly? Many people, including myself and Rep. Goslant, voted no because there
was a better alternate to adding some $230 million over the next two years. (The
benefits only start halfway through the year for the first year, which is why
the cost will nearly double next year.) Staging it more carefully would not
have required a new tax. The governor’s balanced budget had proposed $50
million for this year.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">It was the very strongest of the
override votes because of the intense desire to demonstrate support for
childcare. Some of my colleagues then voted against the underlying budget. I
think that was a bit disingenuous. If you vote to create one the biggest of the
new programs in the budget, you probably need to vote for the budget that funds
it. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">There were 98 votes needed for the
required 2/3rd majority, as three members were absent. The childcare override
vote was 116-31. The budget vote was 105-42. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">***<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">There were five other vetoes
besides the childcare and budget bills, and the supermajority in the House made
short order of overriding three of those; the Senate then also backed those
overrides.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">Those were the professional
regulation changes with $7m in fee increases (109-38); a charter change in Brattleboro
allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections and serve on local
boards (110-37); and the charter change for Burlington to allow noncitizen legal
residents to vote in local elections and on the school budget for the statewide
Education Fund (111-36.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">Two other veto bills were in the
Senate, and they did not choose to vote to override either of them, so they are
dead for this session: the legislative pay raise, and the ban on deceptive
interrogation of criminal suspects under age 22.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">***<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">Ken and I both work hard to try to
balance the needs of all Vermonters in the legislative process, understanding
both how the state has a key role in providing supports but also to not
overburden struggling taxpayers. That means listening to all perspectives and
trying to work together and reach compromise, regardless of party labels.
Sometimes it feels as though that balance keeps getting tougher to reach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">The session is over, but we are
still here and ready to listen. Please get in touch with questions or concerns
that can help us gain your perspective for the year ahead. Email anytime at <a href="mailto:adonahue@leg.state.vt.us">adonahue@leg.state.vt.us</a> or <a href="mailto:kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us">kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us</a><o:p></o:p></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-74658931731252696992023-05-07T18:30:00.005-07:002023-05-07T18:30:59.700-07:00May 7, 2023 Legislative Update<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Legislative
Update<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Rep. Anne
Donahue<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">May 7,
2023<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">In theory,
May 12 is the closing day for this session, but if that actually is to happen,
we will be having some very long nights this week, because so little moved in
the past several days. Of course, resolution of the budget is what dictates the
close, so it is now essentially in the hands of the six members of the
conference committee who are resolving the major differences between House and
Senate versions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">This year,
several other bills hang in that balance as well, and might end up swept into
the budget bill in the end. The House had the funding for its paid medical and
family leave bill in the budget, but the Senate has refused to move forward on
it this year, so House leadership has now conceded and dropped that from the
budget.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The
Senate’s childcare bill has had a lot of revisions made in the House but has
not yet been sent back to the Senate. Instead, it sits in the House tax
committee, because the two bodies have different ways they want to fund it. So,
both funding and the system reforms for childcare are still in flux. In an
unusual move, the chair of the House Human Services Committee was appointed as
one of the three House budget conferees. It’s usually all Appropriations
members. That’s the clearest sign of how entwined the issues have become. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The rest
of us are all left in wait-and-see mode. Either budget version is headed
towards an increase of 12 or 13%, which will require new taxes and fees to
balance it. That’s not sustainable, and not something I can support.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The Senate
accepted the House version of the clean energy bill, so it went straight to the
governor, who has vetoed it. That sets up a veto override vote for as early as
the coming week. As explained in detail in my last update, I voted against the
bill and will stay with that position and vote to sustain the veto.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The
session’s other major bill still in progress addresses our housing crisis, and
that is expected on the House floor this week. In both the House and Senate, it
has ping-ponged between the perspectives of the economic development and
natural resources committees. In concept, everyone agrees: we need to prevent
barriers to new housing, but we need to do that in ways that don’t back off the
commitments to protect our environment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Updating
Act 250, the state’s land use law, hasn’t been stalled for years for nothing.
It’s a tough line to draw. Once that gets through the House sometime this week,
it will still need Senate approval, which is by no means assured. Thus that,
too, may come just in time for the closing bell.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">No parts
of the constitution are absolute, and I have supported gun restrictions where
they increase protection and meet constitutional standards. I voted against
(and will vote to sustain a gubernatorial veto if it occurs this week) the
72-hour waiting period and safe storage bill. Existing data shows the waiting
period would not have an impact in Vermont. The bill also fails to meet
standards for constitutionality.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">However, I
am in support of a pending bill makes it a crime to knowingly possess a firearm
that has had its serial number removed, and to knowingly buy a firearm on
behalf of a person who is prohibited by law from possessing it (referred to as
“straw purchases.”) It allows individuals between 18 and 22 who have been found
delinquent regarding a crime that would have been a felony if it was an adult
conviction, to have the confidential juvenile record sent to the national
background check system – as it would have been if convicted in adult court.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">That is a
segue to another issue this same bill addresses. It is a bit of a corrective
course after several years of bills called “Raise the Age” to treat older teens
as juveniles. I have generally supported the idea that when a young adult
commits a minor crime, they should be handled with supportive rather than
punitive measures, and not gain a lifelong stigma for a youthful mistake. The
crimes under our “Raise the Age” law, however, include all but the most
high-level violent crimes. Making a youth a legal juvenile also means the
public never knows the outcome.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Current
law now considers an 18-year-old to be a juvenile.</span> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">This bill will delay the plan to
also add 19-year-olds as juveniles. It also creates a review process for
identifying whether there show be additions to the list of crimes that are still
permitted to be moved to adult court.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Other
bills of Interest<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Important
bills move that are under the news media radar, often because there was work
done to build consensus. No controversy… no headlines.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The Senate
sent back my committee’s overdose prevention bill with a big new section that
creates a legal mechanism for individuals to get small samples of illegal drugs
tested for the more and more toxic new additives, which are killing people even
faster that previous ones. I’m leery of creating an implication that something
like heroin is “safe” because it doesn’t have fentanyl in it, or of creating a
scenario where dealers can clam (falsely) that what they are selling has been
tested for “purity.” But we are losing more and more Vermonters to this
epidemic. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The Senate
proposal was a loosely worded liability protection that allowed almost anyone
to establish a testing site. I got the language considerably tightened, so that
any provider who offers the testing would lose any protection if they did not
follow operating guidelines established by the Department of Health. They could
be charged criminally for possession of illegal drugs. The Department supported
the language, and I think it minimizes the risks of abuse, so I supported the
amendment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">That’s not
the same, though, when it comes to the new overdose prevention bill that my
committee is now working on. (It is too late for the Senate to take up this
year, so if we pass it this coming week, it will be in the hands of the Senate
for next year.) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">That bill
would sanction sites where people could use their drugs in the presence of
people who are trained to reverse an overdose. Our Health Commissioner
testified that the research is not strong enough yet to show that the benefits
outweigh the risks. There are only two sites in the United States, both in New
York City and both relatively new.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Both our
Attorney General’s Office and the Vermont Medical Society, despite deep
concerns about the overdose crisis, have indicated they have concerns about
starting a program like this at this point. I listened closely to testimony
both pro and con, and told my committee I was not going to be able to support
it. It will almost certainly be controversial when it gets to the floor this
week.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">My Right
to Repair bill for agriculture and forestry equipment passed out of the
Commerce Committee on a unanimous vote and through the House with a 137-2 roll
call vote, so it will be primed up for Senate action next year. This bill
requires manufacturers to make tools and parts available for sale directly to
equipment owners to fix themselves. With our increasing technology, more and
more things we buy can only be repaired (at high cost and delay) by the
manufacturers. Our Vermont roots are as thrifty, do-it-yourselfers, and that is
being robbed from us when it requires a specialty tool even to just open the
item up! This bill is a starting point. I’m hoping next year that we can move
forward on the larger version of the bill, which covers a broad range of
consumer products.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">In another
consumer protection measure, we are also asking the Department of Financial
Regulation to review the existing laws on automobile insurance and covered car
repairs to ensure consumers are not being misled or over-charged based on requirements
regarding after-market parts or limits on authorized repair shops.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">We passed
a Burlington charter change that will allow legal non-citizens to vote in its
municipal elections, including the school budget. This is the second city to do
this; Winooski was approved last year. Montpelier was the first, but with an
important distinction, because its charter does not permit those voters to vote
on the school budget, which directly affects our statewide education fund. I
was fine with Montpelier deciding who can vote in its own local
decision-making, but not with it being extended to votes that affect other
towns and I voted against the Burlington change as I had with Winooski.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">With some
dismay, I heard proponents on the House floor state that Vermont’s Supreme
Court had found both the earlier changes to be constitutional. Not true! It
found Montpelier’s was constitutional, but explicitly said its opinion did not
address situations where the vote might be a statewide issue. There has been no
ruling on the expansion in the Winooski expansion. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I dug up
the direct quotes from the court decision to read to the body – so that
decisions could be based on accurate information. The bill did pass. Hopefully
the court will make a decision in the next year, and we will have clarity one way
or the other.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Finally, it
was great to be congratulating two groups of young people with resolutions this
past week – the U-32 hockey team that won a thriller to become Level 2
champions this year, and the Northfield Junior Rifle team that brought back so
many gold medals from New Hampshire.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I missed
Green Up Day this year for the first time in eons. I was in New Jersey for my
oldest grand-nephew’s First Communion. How quickly time flies! It seems like he
was a toddler such a short time ago…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-61642858177588798732023-04-22T10:40:00.003-07:002023-04-22T10:40:25.014-07:00April 22, 2023<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Legislative
Update<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Rep. Anne
Donahue</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">April 22,
2023</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">After
several weeks buried in wrapping up bills in committee work, the big items of
the session have started exploding onto the House floor, beginning last
Thursday and Friday with the “Clean Heat Standard” bill. It had passed the
Senate by a vote of 19-10, and this week, passed the House by a vote of 98-46.
Both those votes (despite a few legislators absent) make it highly likely that
the expected veto by the governor will be overturned.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The
debate was not over whether we should be doing everything we reasonably can to
address climate change. There was broad consensus on that. It was not even
about whether working to convert heating away from fossil fuels (oil, propane
and natural gas) was a bad idea. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The
fundamental question was over whether we should pass a law to require that conversion
without knowing whether the program is even feasible, or what it will cost, and
whether we should answer those questions before locking it into statute. The
member who presented the bill said that it would be “wildly speculative” to
assign details or cost estimates at this point. We just can’t know that yet.
Thus, she said we should move forward in order to find out the costs and
potential benefits.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I
got up and agreed with her about needing that information. That was exactly the
point. It is wildly speculative, and that is why we should answer those
questions, at least with some rational estimates, before enacting a bill. Unlike
last year, when the final bill required later review and agreement of the
legislature before moving forward (and I thus voted in support of the failed
effort to override a veto), this year’s bill allows the process to go full
steam ahead. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The
legislative “checkback” that proponents point to, which requires the
legislature to approval the implementation rules in 2025, is more of a
“lookback” at what was developed in that interim. Yes, the brakes could be put
on – as can always happen with any bill, by repealing it on a future date – but
the bill actually establishes the “clean heat standard” in law. It does not
wait for information to be gathered first.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">All
of the language is, “shall.” It begins by saying, “the Clean Heat Standard is
established.” Not, “shall be designed and then reviewed.” Fuel dealers “shall
reduce greenhouse gas emissions” from heating sources; the Public Utility
Commission “shall establish” a credit system that will mandate dealers to pay
for incentives to get homeowners to put in heat pump systems and the like; the
dealers “shall obtain” the credits that are required of them; the Commission
“shall adopt rules and may issue orders to implement and enforce the Clean Heat
Standard program.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Who
pays for these measures? This will be your choice: replace your heating system
(with or without support from an efficiency organization that will help
lower-income families), or pay the cost of higher fuel prices that dealers will
be forced to charge in order to pay for the “credits” they are mandated to
obtain. Pay how much? Providing an estimate at this point is what the bill’s
presenter said would be “wildly speculative.” Damn the torpedoes -- full speed
ahead<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">There
are certainly long-term cost savings that may occur – again, no estimates on how
much – but that will be many years down the line. Supporters kept pointing to
the language that says the rules to implement the standards cannot take effect
“without specific authorization enacted” by the legislature after the program
has been fully fleshed out in 2025. That is the checkback.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">But
here is the other language in the bill that is the mega-loophole, in full:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">“The
requirement to adopt rules and any requirements regarding the need for
legislative approval before any part of the Clean Heat Standard goes into
effect do not in any way impair the Commission’s authority to issue orders or
take any other actions, both before and after final rules take effect, to
implement and enforce the Clean Heat Standard.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Note
the number of times “any” is reiterated!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I
was gratified when a new Democratic legislator who is one of the now-three
attorneys in the House got up to directly affirm my analysis. He was one of the
few Democrats who bucked party directives, and voted “no.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">There
were several skirmishes over amendments that were offered before the vote on
the bill. Perhaps most relevant was one that would have placed a cap on how
high the cost of heating fuel could be allowed to get before a “pause” button
could be hit. That was voted down, on the basis that it would constrict
development of the program when the costs are yet unknown.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Note
that the sponsors themselves said that this bill will not change the status of
global warming. The minute-scale efforts from our little piece of the earth
cannot change the trajectory of the effects of worldwide efforts, or lack
thereof. What it would do would put the costs of trying to push that massive
boulder on the shoulders of Vermonters and our economy. We can’t do this in
isolation, which is what this bill is proposing to attempt. We need to join
consolidated efforts, not go it alone.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">More
To Come<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The
childcare bill was voted out of my committee on a 10-1 vote. I strongly
supported the restructuring and thoughtful work on developing steps to improve
the system and support more access and affordability. But again I said, “we
can’t do all of this all at once!”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The
estimated price tag in the first full year of implementation will be in the
range of $140 million. That’s just the baseline. I would absolutely support
phasing it in – such as what the governor’s budget proposed, with a new
investment of $50 million – but voted no on going full throttle.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The
bill will now move through the Education Committee, the Appropriations
Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for
identifying how we will raise the money for it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The
chair of that committee was quoted in the press last week as saying she
believes the bill does not go far enough, and that her committee will be
looking towards an increase in the personal income tax to fund it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Keep
in mind that this would be on top of the payroll tax to pay for a medical and
family leave program that is moving through the House and Senate, the heating
costs of the Clean Heat Standard, the investments in maintaining our safety net
and universal school meals – and at the same time, continuing to tax most of
Social Security and military pensions to a degree that other states do not.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Other
Actions<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">The
House approved the Brattleboro charter change 103-33, a bill that was vetoed
last year but can clearly move forward this year. It allows 16 and 17-year-olds
to be elected as representatives to the town’s delegate-style town meeting
system. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’ve seen a lot of Facebook
posts over recent months, confused about why young adults up to age 21 are no
longer being named in arrest reports and are being sent to Family Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">We
made that change in the legislature based upon the emerging science that the
brain development to make thoughtful decisions rather than impetuous ones is
ongoing through about age 25, so older teens shouldn’t be held liable as
adults. But they can represent constituents and make decisions about town
government? It would be nice to stop being so inconsistent.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">We
also passed a bill that was more symbolic than substantive that bans
“paramilitary training camps” when the intent is for the training to be used
for violent civil disruptions. It was targeted, of course, against Slate Ridge
in Pawlet that has been a thorn in the side of that community for years now.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Why
do I say symbolic? The government has the burden of proving intent. Someone
need only say, this is training for defense <i>against</i> a violent civil
disruption. Ironically, it included specific examples of “exemptions” that
included Norwich training activities. I think the “intent” requirement already
more than covered Norwich!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">On
the Agenda<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Several
bills are working their way through the process to address the delicate balance
between public protection regarding the tiny fraction of individuals whose
mental symptoms lead to violence – but also to help, rather than harm, people
in crisis. These include enabling police to arrest and remove anyone (frequently
unrelated to mental issues) who is being violent against hospital staff or
EMTs. I helped work to ensure that the bill is clear that people who are being
treated and not yet medically stabilized would not be subjected to being hauled
away to jail.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Another
bill creates a segregated “forensic” treatment capacity as a subunit at the
Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital in Berlin for persons accused of crimes who
are found not competent to stand trial but who remain a danger. They are
currently held in the hospital, but sometimes do not need that high a level of
nursing care. My main concern was that we do not hold people in a more
restrictive way based on being “accused” of a crime. The bill is being revised
to require the same standards that are currently used in “no bail” decisions
based on risk of violence, which requires a judge to also find “that the
evidence that the person committed the alleged crime is great.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">I
do worry about taking nine inpatient beds off-line to create this non-hospital
care level. The administration is saying that our bed shortage (and resulting
number of people left waiting for days in our emergency rooms) is not for these
high-level, involuntary hospital settings. Those currently left waiting are
primarily people who are asking for, and need, hospital care – but for whom we
lack inpatient space. That remains unaddressed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Finally,
there is a bill moving (at last!) that would restrict police who are taking a
person in crisis to the hospital from using handcuffs unless it is the only
means for safety. Police would need to have medical-style restraints available
if needed, so that these folks are not being treated like criminals. We have
already required this for years for sheriffs who do hospital transport, and it
hasn’t created any problems; it’s clearly the right way to treat and respect
people. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;">***<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Please
stay in touch with me and Rep. Ken Goslant. We welcome your views and the
opportunity to represent you. We can be reached at </span></i><a href="mailto:adonahue@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">adonahue@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"> or </span></i><a href="mailto:kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">. My archive of legislative updates
is available at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-73943566312956561142023-04-08T13:18:00.003-07:002023-04-08T13:18:59.390-07:00April 8, 2023 Legislative Update<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Legislative
Update<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Rep.
Anne Donahue<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">April
8, 2023<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Our
current legislature functions without the checks and balances of robust
dialogue and compromise that a democracy creates through a two (or more) party
system. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A
majority of Vermonters have chosen one-party control through their votes, so
that’s as it should be from the perspective of policy priorities. But it does reduce
the ability of minority voices to be heard.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Despite
a Republican governor, there is no check there either, since the Democratic
majority is now large enough to be “veto-proof,” meaning holding a 2/3<sup>rd</sup>
majority that can always overturn a veto.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Fortunately,
we do still have one healthy arena for the exchange of perspectives that I
believe is critical to best outcomes. That is because the House and Senate,
despite both holding very liberal views, often have very different priorities
and approaches.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">This
year, the Senate appears to be the best hope to reign in a few of the highest
cost aspirations of the House.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I’ve
referenced several times about my concern that we are headed towards financial
catastrophe if we combine a predicted slowing of the economy (revenue
downgrade) and loss of the influx of federal funds with a cumulative number of
very high-cost new initiatives. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Most
of them will have a smaller cost this year – enabling a balanced budget this
year – but will have a significant increase in cost in the next several years
ahead as they scale up, just as increases in revenues drop.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
budget the House passed two weeks ago included major increases for existing
programs to maintain them in the face of inflation, something I support. Let’s
not undercut our current safety net in order to fund new programs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But
the full proposed budget is off the rails. That is particularly so in the way
it “balances” revenue and costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It
included the first year of investment to develop a paid family and medical
leave program that is untested in its scope and cost, and a multi-million
increase in support for the early childcare and education system. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">To
pay for just first-year costs, the House budget added a 20% increase in motor
vehicle fees, removed several proposed tax relief proposals, and of greatest
concern, decided not to hold aside funds for the required matches for huge
federal infrastructure opportunities that will still be coming in for the next
two years.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">If
we don’t have that cash on hand because we spend it this year, we won’t be able
to take advantage of those infrastructure funds; that money will be lost to us.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
also already voted for a new payroll tax for the future family and medical
leave program. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Still
on the horizon are the consumer costs that will result if we begin to implement
the proposed heat program to convert our energy sources away from fossil fuels.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Will
the Senate partially rescue us?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Senate has passed the “affordable heat” bill with a requirement for a report on
the major elements of the plan before implementation is locked in. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It
also passed a combination childcare and family leave bill, with major new
investments but a lower cost than overall House versions because it does not
include medical leave.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Neither
of these are likely to sit well with the House.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It
is also now the Senate’s turn to work on and present its version of the budget.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It
is only in the Senate that I have heard comments that, “We can’t do everything
we want in just one year.” Thank goodness for that recognition.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border-bottom: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; border: none; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">By late April, the divergent views of
House and Senate will begin to be hammered out into compromises, and only then
will we begin to see what the real outcomes of this session will be. Though
these will be unlikely to show any significant restraint, it hopefully won’t be
as extreme as the level of cost burdens the House is putting forth.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Child Care<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">My committee is now deeply immersed in the
Senate’s childcare bill. The crisis in this system is multi-tiered, which means
that creating both accessible and affordable access – the goal – carries big
costs in multiple areas.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A study authorized last year tells us that
to meet criteria for a high-quality system of care for children 0-to-4-years-old,
the price tag would be about $24,000 per child per year, just about the same as
the average per pupil cost in our schools. That contrasts with a current cost
of $17,000 a year. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Last year, we set a goal that no family
should have to spend more than 10% of its income on childcare. To attempt to meet
that with inclusion of the major spending increase, state subsidies for the
cost would need to extend to families of 600% of poverty, or more. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Roughly speaking, the official definition
of poverty is below $25,000 for a family of three and $30,000 for a family of
four. At 600%, that means below about $149,000 and $180,000, respectively.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Even at that level of subsidy, the
increase in per child cost would mean that families just about that threshold
would be paying significantly more than they do now -- about 16% of income --
and if they have two children, as much as a quarter of their income.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The state would pay a $38.5% rate hike on
the payments to childcare programs that are the basis of the subsidy system.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The reason for the increase in tuition rates
is to address early education pay increases. Low wages add to the challenge in
finding workforce, which in turn adds to the challenge of having enough
childcare programs in the state to meet demand.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Part of the plan is to set a tiered
professional compensation scale that would align with primary grade schoolteachers
with equivalent degrees.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I raised a question: since most childcare
programs are privately run, how does the state get to set wage scales (or
tuition) for them?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The answer: the same way we do a lot of
carrot-or-stick interventions, which is with money. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We can tell programs that they will get
increased subsidies per child, based on a higher tuition level, but only if the
money is being used to meet state-set wage scales. It will be those higher
scales that will force a tuition increase for unsubsidized children as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">One question being batted around is
whether pre-K for 4-year-olds should simply be folded into the school system. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Currently we have universal pre-K
education funding for these kids, but it’s only for 10 hours per week, and it
assumes a parent can find an opening, particularly if the school doesn’t run any
program or is capped in the number of slots.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There are downsides. From the testimony we
are hearing, many of the experts believe our current “mixed delivery system” –
the choice of school-run or private programs for state-support eligibility – is
best for families. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">They also believe it enhances child
development to blend 3- and 4-year-olds.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The other system gap is the afterschool
issue, both for the pre-K and older grade school kids. School hours don’t align
with working hours. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We are sliding into a more fundamental
question.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">What is the state’s role – or more
correctly stated, the societal and taxpayer role – in paying for care and
education before the start of the traditional school age? Does the village pay
to raise the child beginning at birth? Does the role extend to cover all parent
working hours?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Conceptually, that is the direction the
new bill is heading, if it lowers the age for full reimbursement and expands
the role of taxpayers in paying subsidies at all ages.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Senate bill which tied early childhood
education into a family leave bill raises a lot of the total cost for both
programs through a payroll tax on everyone. The startup phase next year would
be $88 million; in the years after, it would be $163 million per year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The payroll tax (.42 %) would raise $88
million of the cost, elimination of the new (last year) child tax credit of
$1,000 per year would raise $32 million, and the rest would be a general fund
cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I’m not sure that payroll taxes or tuition
increases are what people have in mind when they urge legislators to do more to
support the funding of early education. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">This goes way beyond adding help with
costs. It is restructuring the concept of responsibility for the cost of
raising children – shifting it from resting fully on parents to becoming a
shared community responsibility. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I’m not automatically saying that’s a bad
thing, but it is certainly worthy of recognition and serious reflection.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Just as we all benefit from an educated
society and thus share in the cost of public schools, investing in healthy
growth of children from the beginning brings a community benefit. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">These are the most formative years of all
for young brain development, so it matters to do the job well. We want our next
generation of kids to flourish.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Let’s also not forget that we keep
bemoaning the loss of new young workers because they will be needed to sustain the
economy and fund Social Security for our aging population… aging population
means that fewer children are arriving to balance off those of us growing old.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We all have a stake in this for many
reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But it also has to balance with
affordability for Vermont. We aren’t an island, and the further ahead we get of
other states on these kind of costly initiatives, the more we lose both
business and taxpayers to the tax burdens.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Ergo, my plea: we can’t do all this all at
once. We don’t have to be – can’t afford to be – first in everything.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Other Bills<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We passed the property tax rate for next
year, the basic math between budgets passed by schools versus revenue from the
grand lists. On average budgets increased 8%, grand lists (property valuation)
increased 9.7%, and individual property tax rates will increase 3.84%. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The number doesn’t mean much on an
individual basis, since every town varies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We also passed a bill that proposes to
shift away from locally elected listers to a more professional, statewide
system. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There was some opposition to taking away
local control, but the reality is that this is about an effort at greater
equity among all our towns, since the property valuations that make up the
grand list in each town impacts the entire state. Thus, I supported the bill.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I also – with misgivings – supported the
expanded “bottle bill.” It isn’t just an expansion of the deposit system to
more recyclables, which I wholly support. It reconfigures the entire system and
could be more disruptive than anticipated. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There will be a window, however, between
rulemaking and implementation that will allow us to back up if some of the
premises turn out to be wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">My committee received a bill from the
Senate on banning all flavored tobacco and vaping products to reduce the appeal
to kids, and we are hearing a lot of lobbying from both perspectives already. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Given the amount of work needed on the childcare
bill, our chair has said we won’t take this up until next year.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Senate has sent us a bill that would
more than double legislator salaries over the next several years and add health
benefits (at a cost of $853,000) for next year. It also includes a first-ever
salary for one day per week during the off-session.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It is another example of costs being
approved this year that will hit the budget at much higher levels in future
years. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The last time there was a major hike in
legislator salaries was about 16 years ago. It came after an independent study
and recommendations, was pegged at median Vermont salaries, and included an
ongoing cost of living increase tied to state employee increases.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">This new bill is not generated by outside
recommendations, but by some legislators who feel underpaid and who believe it
will make it more possible for lower income folks to run for office. If equity
is the issue, there may be an argument for it, but doubling the salary means legislators
being paid far above median income for what is supposed to be public service. I
can’t support that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Since we, as the lawmakers, have yet to
achieve access to affordable health benefits for all Vermonters, it’s a hard
sell for me to say legislators should get that coverage.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted windowtext 3.0pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 1.0pt 0in; padding: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Please stay in touch with me and Rep. Ken
Goslant. We welcome your views and the opportunity to represent you. We can be
reached at </span></i><a href="mailto:adonahue@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">adonahue@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> or </span></i><a href="mailto:kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">. My archive of
legislative updates is available at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
</div>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-84752338971402070412023-03-25T12:52:00.001-07:002023-03-25T12:52:19.038-07:00March 25, 2023 Legislative Update<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Legislative
Update<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Rep.
Anne Donahue<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">March
25, 2023<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Paid
Leave<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Universal
School Meals<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Gun
Restrictions<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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<sup>nd</sup>
amendment. The Offices of the Attorney General and of the Defender General (the
state’s top two attorneys) had opposite opinions on that. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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<sup>nd</sup> amendment
rights. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Budget
Priorities<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Finally,
congratulations to Rachel Giroux, Berlin’s Town Clerk, for being named to the
Secretary of State’s Town Clerk Advisory Committee.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Please
share your input and thoughts. You can reach me at </span></i><a href="mailto:adonahue@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">adonahue@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">, or Rep. Ken
Goslant at </span></i><a href="mailto:kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> It is an honor to
represent you.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-49894195631657143102023-02-25T12:06:00.001-08:002023-02-25T12:06:45.755-08:00Legislative Update, February 25, 2023<p> 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.)</p><p>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.)</p><p>***</p><p>Paid Family Leave</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>So, back to paid family and medical leave.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.”</p><p>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.</p><p>***</p><p>Clean Heat</p><p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>***</p><p>Guns</p><p>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.)</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p>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.)</p><p>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.</p><p>***</p><p>Committee Work</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>Watch for a potential WCAX piece with Jesse in the coming week or so!</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>***</p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-60783222969393310372023-02-11T14:09:00.003-08:002023-02-11T14:09:44.496-08:00Legislative Update, February 11, 2023<p> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.2in;">This is the time of the session when
legislators are spending most of the time in committee, delving deeply into
bills that are expected to move this year. There is little action on the floor because
bills have not been voted out of committees yet. It’s a slow time for the news
media, which typically only has the bandwidth for headliner items, not complex
testimony. That means picking up on juicy-sounding bills, even if they are not
being seriously considered.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Legislators have received a massive
onslaught of email – more than on virtually any bill I can remember – urging us
to vote “no” on H. 113, a bill that would deny tax-exempt status to nonprofit
organizations that do political lobbying. They are all cut and paste messages
and mostly coming from Chittenden County, though many writers are not
identifying their town. (If I haven’t answered a local constituent, my
apologies.) Cookie-cutter messages being sent to every legislator rarely get
given much weight regardless, but in this case, it’s a bill that isn’t on any
committee agenda, and closely aligns with existing federal law. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">So be on guard! Ask Rep. Ken Goslant or me
if you’ve seen something of concern, and we’ll find out if it is being taken
seriously in a committee. If you want to follow where any committee is
focusing, the best bet is to scan every Monday on the weekly agenda posting. Go
to legislature.vermont.gov, click on “Committees” and go to the far right
column. Scroll down and click on “complete weekly schedule.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">What <u>Is</u> Getting Attention?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Beyond next year’s state budget and the
question of taxes to fund new initiatives, the range of current hot topics with
big price tags include paid family leave, making universal school lunches
permanent, expanding support for childcare, and housing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">More and more, housing and childcare are
being tied into the workforce shortage crisis, arguing that more availability
would draw more folks to Vermont. Some people with job offers are turning them
down because they can’t find housing; some of the folks temporarily sheltered
in hotels are stuck because they can’t find housing. I support the ongoing
investments there, and the recognition that part of the problem that needs to
be addressed are state and local construction barriers. If we want more people
to fill empty jobs (and to contribute to our economy) we need to be more
welcoming of all types of housing in our communities.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I’m less sure about how much of a role
government should have in childcare. That bill will be in my committee over the
next several weeks, and I’ll be paying close attention to the testimony. The
component that is stirring the most controversy right now is the argument for
and against folding 4-year-olds into the school system instead of maintaining
the current public-private system.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Last year, I understood and supported the
rationale for expanding free school lunches to every child, but it was paid
with one-time money and the talk was of continuing it in the future with an
increase in the sales tax. “One-time” becomes momentum to keep it going, and
using the regressive sales tax would mean – in simplistic terms – taxing the
poor to feed the wealthy. It was a tough call for me, but I voted against it. I’m
glad to see a broader look this year. It would make more sense if absorbed as
part of the cost of educating our children, by including it in school budgets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Focused Issues<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Some of the issues getting committee
attention include increasing consumer protection for data privacy, legalizing
sports betting, creating a mechanism via miles travelled to have e-cars
contribute to road maintenance taxes (since they don’t pay in to the gas tax),
responses to our high suicide rates, the crisis with kids’ mental health, and
assaults of health care workers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I went to a presentation and emergency
room tour at Central Vermont Medical Center last week to hear about workforce
and financial stresses along with assaults. Generally, under Vermont law, if
there isn’t an arrest warrant and it’s not a felony, a person can only receive
a citation rather than be taken into custody. Our society is getting more
short-tempered and aggressive and that’s carrying over into emergency rooms. But
if a nurse is assaulted, the police can only cite the person, not remove them
from the scene. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. I support expanding health
facilities to the situations where the police can remove someone. CVMC was clear
that no one would be removed if they remained actively needing treatment – but
they would then be under police custody until able to be discharged.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Another high-profile issue is a plan by
the administration to change state employee retiree health benefits from the
standard Medicare supplemental coverage to a Medicare Advantage plan. The
assertion is that nothing will change in the benefits but it will save money
for both retiree premiums and the state (meaning, taxpayers.) I’ve just gone
through the complicated transition to Medicare and know a lot of detail about
how each works. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">But the bottom line here is that existing
law says the retiree plan must remain the same as the negotiated plan for
current employees. I strongly agree that if there is going to be a change, it’s
the administration’s job to sell the beneficiaries on why it is better. Our retirees
are currently not the least bit convinced. A deal is a deal. Follow the law: get
buy-in or drop the idea.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In My Committee<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Human Services Committee is working on
a broad rewrite of our old laws on protection of adults who are vulnerable to
abuse based on age or disability. It’s a complicated bill and though we’re
mostly finished with testimony, it will take at least a week of “mark-up,” the
process of going through the bill to make revisions. We will also be starting
on a bill to add measures to the arsenal of tools for fighting the drug
epidemic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We divided into teams to review different
sections of the proposed budget relevant to our committee’s jurisdiction for
offering recommendations to the Appropriations Committee. I’m working on the
proposed for an assortment of new facilities for juveniles charged with crimes
who are under the custody of the Department of Children and Families, not
Corrections. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We closed and demolished the up-to-30-beds
Woodside facility several years ago. It was serving fewer than five or six kids
and was under court oversight for abuses. Now the state’s decided we do need
some locked capacity for youth who present an active danger or who need
intensive residential treatment; it’s suggesting at least three smaller new programs.
The most immediate would be a short-term lock-up (called a stabilization
program) for up to eight kids, but the need is perceived as too urgent to wait
the four to six years (???) it takes to build a new state facility. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Thus, the current proposal is for a
temporary facility constructed with ten modular units on the grounds of the
Northwestern Correctional Center; price tag, around $4 million. We want to
ensure there is input from families and other experts for its design. This will
be a multi-committee subject since the Institutions Committee oversees state
capital funds and the Judiciary Committee addresses legal issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It all ties into the “raise-the-age”
initiative of the past several years that recognizes the science of brain
development of 18-to-20-year-olds in terms of the ability to make adult
decisions. I could say a lot about my views on the pros-and-cons of handling
young adults in Family Court rather than Criminal Court, but it would be far
too detailed for this space. I’ll leave it at saying there are definitely both
pros and cons. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">My Work<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I made an unsuccessful attempt to have the
legislature commit to closer evaluation of the planning underway for the state
to pay to develop a children’s inpatient psychiatric unit at Southwestern
Vermont Medical Center. Kids’ needs are urgent, but is Bennington the right
place when the only other place in Vermont is currently in Brattleboro? And is
this the best target for spending big dollars, versus in urgent care and
community support? Why would this be state money, anyway? If a new surgery
suite was needed, a hospital would be the one to pay for it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I think if these beds are needed, they
belong attached to our only Children’s Hospital, at UVMMC in Burlington. But
UVMMC, which has been saying it has no money for new construction and is under
huge financial stress, has just announced plans to construct a new surgery center.
It reflects a sad reality of our totally mucked-up health care financing system
and the failure to achieve parity in treatment of mental health. Inpatient
psychiatry is under-reimbursed and loses money. Surgery is highly reimbursed
and stabilizes a hospital’s revenue. Hospitals must opt for financial stability
over identifying the highest community need. So, it’s the state budget that must
build psychiatric beds.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Protecting Health Providers<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The one significant bill on the House
floor this past week addressed protecting health providers from being
prosecuted or sued from out of state for providing services that are legal in
Vermont. It focused on reproductive services such as abortion and gender treatment
or surgery. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Vermont is one of only two states in the
country that does not cover the flip side of this issue: protection against
discrimination for providers who do not want to participate for reasons of
conscience. Bills have been introduced but not taken up. I introduced an
amendment to add conscience protection to the out-of-state interference
protection. It was ruled not germane, so I voted against the bill in protest
(knowing the reasonable underlying bill would pass easily, which it did,
130-13.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Please contact Ken or
me anytime; </span></i><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="mailto:adonahue@leg.state.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">adonahue@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a></span><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"> or </span></i><span style="font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="mailto:kgoslant@state.leg.vt.us"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us</span></i></a></span>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-21170305982601645312023-01-29T08:21:00.003-08:002023-01-29T08:21:47.621-08:00Legislative Update, January 28, 2023<p> I’m someone who believes that transparency is a bedrock of our democracy. The fact that any citizen can walk in or out of our state house and in or out of any committee room to see what is happening, really matters.</p><p>We both lost and gained with COVID. Having to convert to remote lawmaking was a major loss to interpersonal legislative dynamics. But that conversion also meant the installation of new technology, and now anyone can watch a committee from any part of the state, include archived videos of prior meetings.</p><p>Being back in person should mean that, even with the ongoing remote access, we are back to open doors and open access. In theory, we are. Capacity limits are a bit tighter than they used to be. No more allowing small committee rooms with standing room only, becoming winter breeding grounds for winter colds and worse. But the doors are otherwise open.</p><p>That was until this past week, when the House Appropriations Committee made a temporary move to a meeting space in the executive office building next door. (It was getting its new committee room, a former large meeting space, spruced up; nothing essential.) That building has restricted access. To get in, you need to have identification on you, and sign in to get a guest pass. Other committees are also planning to use that space at times.</p><p>Most people seemed to think it was no big deal. I think it is a big deal, and I made an objection on the House floor. I don’t know that it will make any difference. But when we start taking open public access too lightly, it becomes easy to keep sliding farther away from considering transparency as a bedrock.</p><p>***</p><p>Another internal debate: now that we’ve learned how handy it can be to participate remotely, should we create some allowances for voting remotely? (In committee only, not on the House floor.) We ended that special COVID authority at the end of last year, but as with workplaces across the country, some folks want to hold onto the new accessibility.</p><p>In the past, voting in person was sacrosanct. If you were out sick, you could participate by speakerphone, but you didn’t count as part of a quorum and could not vote. Our Rules Committee (I am a member) is now reconsidering this policy. Suggestions on limits are being debated: COVID-only? A sick child or a childcare or school closure (snow day)? Dangerous travel in a snowstorm? </p><p>The argument for flexibility has some added weight when we consider that we want to encourage more diversity – more younger folks, who are more likely to have kids to worry about – among candidates for office. It was never an issue before because we never had the capacity for visual participation before. If you couldn’t make it for a day, then it meant you couldn’t make it that day. </p><p>The question for me is, just because we can, should we? There is something about seeing people eye-to-eye. There is something to maintaining the gravitas of what we are doing by requiring that you be physically present to vote. We’ll continue the discussion in the Rules Committee and likely vote next week (in person) on whether to do a trial run, and if so, with what limitations.</p><p>***</p><p>Speaking of diversity, that’s the primary argument behind new efforts to make it more affordable to be a legislator. A bill introduced in the Senate would require that legislators receive full health coverage and childcare reimbursement along with a one-quarter salary for the work done during the off-session (May-Dec.) The current salary and expense stipends add up to about $20,000 for the 16 weeks; there is no health care support at all.</p><p>The suggested benefits would exceed what anyone else is guaranteed in their employment and would cost taxpayers a lot of money. On the other hand, other jobs don’t have the issue of ensuring equity in representation in one’s government.</p><p>***</p><p>The post-COVID crash will start arriving in the next couple of months: the loss of the added federal supports for individuals that have poured in for the past two years. For those who have become accustomed to them, it will come as a hardship. </p><p>Those receiving “3Squares” (our Vermont name for food stamps) have been receiving a supplemental payment each month. The mid-month payment will end when the federal budget cuts it off after March.</p><p>In addition, states were told to suspend “redeterminations” for Medicaid during COVID. That’s the annual process of checking that a person is still eligible. That, too, is coming to an end. Even folks who remain fully eligible need to ensure that their address is up to date for Medicaid notices. If you are on a Medicaid plan, and you’ve moved in the past three years you might not get the notices that tell you what you need to do to stay enrolled – and you could get cut off.</p><p>Extra emergency housing benefits paid with federal funds are also expiring at the end of March. The governor’s budget has added some $15m in state funds for next year to help the most vulnerable folks (families with children, seniors, and those with disabilities) gain a bit more time and support in finding more permanent housing.</p><p>But in the Human Services Committee, we are already beginning to hear the pleas from community organizations for extra help. There will be plenty more as we review the human services budget over the next several weeks.</p><p>The Vermont Food Bank is seeing increased demand and higher costs. They testified last week asking for $3m. Home health providers are having payment rates by Medicare cut. Since Medicaid already underpays, those services are facing a severe shortfall – and they are crucial for helping people get out of the hospital or avoid going into hospitals and nursing homes.</p><p>Parent-child centers are telling us that without $5m in added funding for salary and other inflationary pressures, they may have to limit their services to struggling families. Senior centers are coping with an aging volunteer corps and rising costs. It costs about $12 per meal they provide, and they are reimbursed about $5.50 each.</p><p>The local agencies that provide community services for those with mental health and developmental needs – an area which has faced decades of budget shortfalls and is experiencing unprecedented increases in demand – is receiving no rate increase in this year’s governor’s budget. Not receiving a rate increase amounts to a budget cut in the face of inflationary costs.</p><p>Even small programs create tough choices. For the past several years, the Junior League of the Champlain Valley has stepped up with a new volunteer initiative to create a “diaper bank” for families in need; diapers cost some $80/month, we were told, which is a big bite out of a minimum wage salary. The League testified that they can’t maintain the emergency project and its significant growth. It is asking for $380,000 for the state to fund the program. </p><p>Meanwhile, we’re also facing some major new costs over the next several years to build and operate at least three new locked treatment programs for justice-involved juveniles with violent behaviors. We closed the only existing one a few years ago. The numbers will keep growing as we continue the “raise the age” law passed several years ago that converts many young adults into juveniles handled by Family Court, currently up from age 17 to 19 and due to move to 20 this July.</p><p>Meanwhile, we are making little progress on rebuilding the state’s workforce, which is contributing to high health care costs and reduced progress on other initiatives. The agency in charge of the weatherization program for low-income homes (saving both heating costs and environmental damage) testified last week that progress has been slowed by the backlog in weatherization workforce capacity.</p><p>To understand the scope of the healthcare workforce impact, one has only to look at this year’s budget adjustment request for operating costs of the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital. Despite having budgeted for the need for travelling nurses (provided by agencies at three or more times the cost), more were needed than projected, resulting in the need for $11m to be added to the current budget. Despite that, four of its 25 beds currently remain closed because of staffing shortages. For context: the annual budget pre-COVID was about $23m/year, so $11m more is a 50% increase to the operating budget. </p><p>Money has to come from somewhere and ultimately, it is all from our pockets. As we look to balance the budget, I think that addressing existing programs must come before creating new ones. That makes me highly leery of the talk of creating paid family leave programs, super-charging childcare support (beyond the $50m in added support the governor is already proposing) and using fuel tax increases as the mechanism for pushing for a reduction in carbon-fueled heating systems.</p><p>Even the governor’s proposed budget, though balanced without new taxes, adds to that pattern. It funds the creation of three new mental health response programs, for example, while cutting the existing ones. To make it worse, those new ones are “pilots” that come “cheap” to us because they receive a significantly higher federal match than the standard one. When that match rate drops in two years, we will have to either close them down or backfill with more state money. </p><p>Closing down is much harder than not starting. We’re already seeing that as COVID funds go away and I don’t think we should be making it worse for the future. </p><p>***</p><p>Please reach out anytime to your representatives – me (adonahue@leg.state.vt.us) or Ken Goslant (kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us) at any time. </p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-84448356886517397592023-01-15T09:12:00.002-08:002023-01-15T09:12:30.241-08:00Legislative Update, January 15, 2023<p>Both Rep. Ken Goslant and I did “biweekly” updates last week, so this will be some shorter highlights as we get onto our usual alternating schedule.</p><p>The good news of the week is that the long tradition of Farmers Night has returned after a several-year COVID absence. These free performances in the House Chamber every Wednesday evening at 7:30 are a real treat and showcase some of our most talented Vermont performers, including the Vermont Symphony Orchestra. You can find the full schedule (Jan. 18 through April 12) at the bottom right of the legislature’s home page, legislature.vermont.gov</p><p>***</p><p>Committees are just getting organized, and bills just being submitted, so there’s been no action on the floor yet, but lots of media attention on the agenda for the controlling majority in both House and Senate. These include significant investments in childcare (from general funds); the family leave bill (via payroll tax); and climate change mitigation through home heating mandates (via fuel surcharges.) On top of inflationary pressures and an expected hike in school taxes, these could really add up, so each will require review with an eye to the whole package.</p><p>But I recognize that everyone has their own priorities, since I’m introducing a bill that would require new funding: the “65th Birthday Cliff” bill would address the disparity that currently occurs when older Vermonters lose financial assistance for health coverage as they go onto Medicare. Medicare has significant gaps, yet we change the low-income threshold for Medicaid support at that point.</p><p>***</p><p>The governor’s budget address is scheduled for this Friday, so we’ll be hearing his priorities. We are already reviewing the changes in the current budget he is proposing in the budget adjustment act. One item of concern to me is a $9m appropriation to fast-track construction of a children’s inpatient psychiatric unit at Southwestern Medical Center in Bennington. We do need to act quickly to meet critical mental health needs, but not so quickly that we make major investments that could be misguided.</p><p>Those kinds of mistakes can occur when public input is limited. I’m concerned that this would be in Bennington, when the only other hospital for children is in Brattleboro, causing significant challenges for families. We also need to ensure we aren’t investing in the highest, most expensive level of care without adequately funding programs in the community that could prevent a need for hospitalization. </p><p>It’s worth asking why the state be paying to build a unit in a hospital, when all other types of care are part of the hospitals’ own capital investments? The answer is that hospitals get more revenue for care such as surgery while psychiatry loses money. Reforms need to align the actual costs with actual funding, both inpatient and outpatient, and we’ve made little progress on parity for mental health care. It shouldn’t be a surprise that mental health needs are skyrocketing when kids wait months to access child psychiatry.</p><p>The legislature has been pushing for steps towards integration of health care for decades, but we almost took a step backwards in our own language in another example of action taken too quickly without input. The Speaker wanted to change jurisdictions of our House committees. One was eliminated to bolster several others, and descriptions of all were revised. Input by the full legislature was limited to seeing the document an hour before the vote on it. Health care was renamed “physical and mental health care” – the lingo of segregation we eschewed a decade ago. I objected with a fair amount of passion and am happy to report that it was re-amended this past week to use our own current statutory language that describes an “integrated and holistic health care system.”</p><p>***</p><p>Berlin’s leadership took a key step this past week in getting a handle on the level of disruption that has been occurring because of the state paying to house homeless individuals and families at the Hilltop Inn. I had helped in encouraging the state to come to the table and sat in on a meeting with town officials and the police chief, owner representation from the Hilltop, a social service provider and the Commissioner and staff from the Department of Children and Families.</p><p>Berlin officials made it clear that they want to support homeless folks, but the minority who are bringing violence and drug issues are creating a huge burden on local police. The Inn’s management hasn’t taken any quick actions, and the town felt more support was needed by the state. It turned out that the Hilltop wasn’t aware that they can have people removed immediately if they are endangering others, but also needed help in getting clear details from the police calls. All the players will now be meeting weekly to see if problems can be resolved quickly when they crop up. I was particularly impressed by the Berlin manager, Vince Conti, in how he steered the discussion to stay on topic and work towards problem-solving.</p><p>***</p><p>Please reach out any time to Rep. Goslant or me, at KGoslant@leg.state.vt.us or ADonahue@leg.state.vt.us It is a pleasure to serve you.</p><div><br /></div>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-41053345661227322242023-01-09T06:14:00.004-08:002023-01-09T06:14:49.097-08:00Legislative Update, Start of the 2023 Session<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: 0.2in;"> Pomp and circumstance can get a bad rap
sometimes. “Get over yourselves. Go to work.” Returning to it this week to open
the 2023-4 legislative session after missing it in 2021 due to COVID reminded
me of why it matters. It emphasizes for all of us the gravitas of what we are
doing, representing the people of Vermont -- 150 representatives, 30 senators,
a governor, and four other constitutional officers all pledging to uphold the
constitution and to do our best together to promote the interests of our state.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The news media may focus on the governor’s
inauguration and his inaugural address (his emphasis this year was equal
opportunity for our rural areas), but every orchestrated piece of the
ceremonies bear meaning. The National Guard escorts honored guests to the well
of the House (the center section). This includes all past governors (Howard Dean,
Jim Douglas and Peter Shumlin were all there), members of the Vermont Supreme
Court, and the incoming state officers. They are Auditor Doug Hoffman,
Secretary of State Sarah Copeland-Hansas, Attorney General Charity Clark, and
Treasurer Michael Piechak. This year, only one is a returning official
(Hoffman), which means a major transition in state leadership.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Senate files in to its designated
seats of honor in the House chambers; the Guard presents the colors; all join
in the pledge. The Star-Spangled Banner was sung by none other than François
Scarborough Clemmons, best known as Officer Clemmons on Mr. Roger’s
Neighborhood and a resident of Vermont (I didn’t know that!) The student chorus
from Middlebury Union High School sang “America the Beautiful” and “These Green
Mountains.” There were two invocations and one benediction.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Some of the small traditions help carry
the sense of weightiness and significance of the events. For example, a
committee of six (three Representatives and three Senators) is formally
appointed by the presiding officer (the Lieutenant Governor, who like reps and
senators were sworn in the day before) to walk out in procession to the
Governor’s office and then escort the governor-elect into the House chamber.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As commentator David Moats said later, “It
was a grand day when Vermonters could feel pride in the governing institutions
of their state, in their leaders, and in the spirit of community that unites
people of widely different experiences and viewpoints. It was a day of patriotism
in the old-fashioned sense.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">“The inescapable contrast was evident to
anyone who tuned in to the goings-on under way in the U.S. House of
Representatives.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Much of the feel-good will ebb away as we
plunge into work and the controversies we will inevitably face. We elected a
Republican Governor but a “super-majority” Democratic House and Senate, meaning
majorities of more than two-thirds, thus capable of overturning any veto of
legislative priorities.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">There will be some restraint in the
actions of the general assembly, since members know they will face elections in
two years and would risk losing seats if they pressed farther left than the
state’s voters want. Thus, while the voice of Republicans could theoretically
be disregarded altogether, it will not become irrelevant. They will point out
excesses and try to mitigate perceived harms.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Perhaps most importantly, they will keep
alive the role that I have always believed to be most essential to our
democratic process: that it is in the robust debate of different perspectives
and the melting pot of ideas that we develop the best paths forward on
difficult issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">That segues directly to a discussion of my
committee appointment in the House, which drew some media attention.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">For all my previous 20 years in the House,
I have had a significant focus on mental health and am well known for that work.
I speak above all for those, like me, who have faced the challenges of mental
illness. That comes within the context of our overall health care system with
its failures and gaps. I have been part of the team working urgently to attempt
to address growing costs and the need for equity in access. For the past six
years, I have been vice-chair of the House Health Care Committee. Less than two
years ago, the Speaker referred to the committee chair and me as her “A-Team”
in health care.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Last fall, I took on a vocal, statewide
volunteer role speaking out in opposition to passing Article 22, the
constitutional amendment on reproductive rights. I’ll not repeat here the long
discussion of the differing perspectives and why I believed presenting the
opposing view was so important. The amendment was not only a priority of the
Democratic majority and the Speaker but was also of great personal importance
to her, a former policy director for Planned Parenthood. So, this past week,
she punished me by removing my vice-chair position and my health care committee
membership altogether.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It did not come as a surprise to me. I
knew from the start that there was a political risk to be outspoken on the issue.
But I felt compelled to follow my own moral compass and speak out for what I
believed in. I heard from others that she was under pressure from allies to
demote me. In mid-December, I was told I would be moved to the Commerce
Committee, which covers subjects for which I have no background. A few days
before the start of the session, that was changed to the Human Services
Committee.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">What saddened me greatly was not so much
the move, but the inability of the Speaker to put core principles of free
speech and public debate ahead of differences of opinion. If a person with a
position that is contrary to that of the ruling majority can be punished for speaking
out publicly, there is a chilling effect on all debate over controversial
subjects. Regardless of any specific topic, it bodes poorly for the democratic
process. As Voltaire said, “I disagree with what you say, but I defend to death
your right to say it.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The move smacks of the Washington politics
that we try so much to hold as a contrast to ourselves. It is not what we
sometimes term, “the Vermont way” or what Moats called “the spirit of community
that unites people of widely different experiences and viewpoints.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Speaker denied her decision was
retribution, but her explanations did not hold much water. She told news media
that it was a part of her effort to balance committee needs given an
unprecedented number of new incoming legislators and the unprecedented number
of committee chairs who retired last year and had to be replaced. She noted
that those new chairs needed to have their committees balanced between taking
in new members and having support from experienced ones. Yet she played that
out in my case by flipping me with a 14-year member of the Human Services
Committee. Rep. Topper McFaun from Barre Town became vice-chair of Health Care
and I took his slot as ranking member of Human Services. Both those committees
have first-time chairs, and both of those chairs have worked for years
alongside each of us on those committees; we each have developed expertise in
the committee subject matters. Topper himself strongly objected to being moved
from Human Services. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I think it was the voters of Northfield
and Berlin who represented “the Vermont way.” You overwhelmingly disagreed with
my position on Article 22 at roughly the same as the statewide average, 75
percent. And yet you honored me with the top number of votes to return as your
representative, significantly ahead of a pro-Article 22 candidate. The message
was clear (and some said it directly to me last fall): We do not agree with you
on the reproductive liberty issue, but we respect the work you do for our
district and state as a whole and will continue to support you. Many
specifically referenced my work in mental health.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I won’t stop working on mental health, although
my role will be as an advocate rather than a participating member of a
legislative committee. I won’t stop working for constituents, or listening to
your perspectives, whether they differ from mine or not. And I will put as much
energy into my new committee as I did my old, rebuilding my existing knowledge
of its subjects of jurisdiction, which include childcare, Reach-Up, services
for elders and those with developmental disabilities, neglect and abuse, and
related topics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Rep. Ken Goslant, my district-mate, has
been reappointed to the Judiciary Committee, where he has now built four years
of expertise in its jurisdictional matters.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">As we begin this new session, do keep in
mind that some of the controversial and high-profile issues that predominate
the media are often not the most fundamental matters for the future of our
state. The legislature’s largest responsibility is the state budget, which shapes
our priorities both in revenue and spending choices. Our future also rests on
workforce development, the education of our children, social equity, and
climate change resiliency. But whether big or small, please remember that both
Ken and I want very much to hear from you when you have concerns or
perspectives to share. He can be reached at <a href="mailto:kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us">kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us</a>, and I am
at <a href="mailto:adonahue@leg.state.vt.us">adonahue@leg.state.vt.us</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Best for the New Year to all.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Anne<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">For those who may be interested, I’m going
to supplement this update with a section of the report that new member Gina
Galfetti of Barre Town sent to her constituents, since it covers another
first-day event that I had not included, since my updates are already so long.
But this is a good summary:<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">During lunch, at 12:23pm to be precise, we
were sent an email giving notice of a Resolution that we were to consider for
the afternoon. And this is where things got interesting. In an unprecedented
move, the majority party had decided to put a rather weighty item up for our
consideration with little prior notice. I say consideration rather generously,
for what could 51 new members know, having never engaged in a committee meeting
let alone floor debate? <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Resolution H.R. 4 was a complete
overhaul of the House’s committee structure. The resolution eliminated long
standing committees such as Fish and Wildlife and replaced them with things
like “Energy and the Environment” and “Agriculture, Food Resiliency and
Forestry.” It also tasked multiple Committees with the same tasks in what is
sure to create troubling overlap in the future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Resolution proposed to eliminate a number of committee chairmanships
and completely alter the makeup of long-standing committees. At a time when 51
new members would have certainly changed the makeup of many committees anyway,
and continuity and institutional knowledge would be needed, this Resolution
dropped like a bomb on the stability of the House. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">When we returned to the floor, few members
— especially first-year members — had any idea what was going on. The Speaker
gaveled up into session, and the Resolution was put up to vote. One lone voice
of questioning arose, and that was from Representative Anne Donahue of Northfield.
Donahue proceeded to question one of the sponsors of the Resolution as to its
meaning and scope. The sponsors of the bill scrambled to answer questions and
soon Donahue was hushed up without getting any good answers to her questions. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As
Donahue sat shaking her head, the Resolution was passed and business returned
to “normal” with the assignments of committees taking place…<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-29881313774909872282022-12-20T05:24:00.003-08:002022-12-20T05:24:45.067-08:002023 Legislative Economic Preview<p> Legislative Financial Preview</p><p>Rep. Anne Donahue</p><p>December 20, 2022</p><p><br /></p><p>Every December, new and returning legislators get the opportunity to hear a preview of the state’s financial status in anticipation of starting work in January. Our state economist and principal economic advisor, Tom Kavet, shares his best estimates of what the economy is looking like, and what we might be facing in the year ahead. That includes the second half of fiscal year 2023 -- which ends in June -- and fiscal year 2024, which starts this July and will be the budget we construct over the months ahead.</p><p>I usually try to send out a summary, but this year, his opening bullet points do a far better job than I could in summing up the situation that led him to open by saying, “Two opposing forces are now colliding and shaping the national and state economics – and affecting state revenues.” </p><p>I’ll start with his concluding point, and then go in order from the top:</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>A good start to the fiscal year 2023 revenues, but the second half of the year will be more challenging and fy ’24 could be ugly. </p><p>Here’s why:</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Total [state] revenues through November (General, Transportation and partial Education Funds [referencing the non-property tax portions]) are about 6.5% above targets (about $76 million on a base of about $1.2 billion), with revenues particularly strong in the first quarter of the fiscal year and slower in the second. </p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The revenue strength in the first five months of the fiscal year was concentrated in Personal and Corporate income taxes. With asset prices and corporate profits still at elevated levels, demand remaining resilient and prices rising, income tax liabilities have risen accordingly. </p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Almost all other revenue sources were close to or slightly above year-to-date targets, including the large consumption taxes, with rooms and meals 1.8% above target, motor vehicle purchase and use up 2.3% and sales and use, up 3.2%.</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>With one foot still on the gas and the other now slamming on the brakes, federal fiscal and monetary policies are generating opposing forces that will both confuse and control the state economy and revenues in coming years.</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>While direct pandemic health effects have receded from prominence, their legacy of vast federal spending, shifting consumer preferences, supply chain disruptions and reduced labor force participation continue to resonate loudly.</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>With viral mutations continuing and geo-political instability from war in Europe added to the mix, the outlook continues to be extremely volatile and unpredictable.</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Despite all the current risk, fy 22 and fy 23 revenues to date have benefited from the vast federal spending which has been coursing through the Vermont economy in the past 2 years.</p><p>So there you have it: we’re in great shape right now. The words “volatile and unpredictable” are scary ones.</p><p>What is the basis for the unpredictability? Here are some of Cavet’s other points, abbreviated:</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The extraordinary federal deficit spending to offset the pandemic blunted its impact but was probably more than what was needed.</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Vermont received a disproportionate share, in excess of $10 billion. [This is due to the “small state minimum” formula.]</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Inflation Reduction Act may reduce inflation in the long run but includes further spending that will delay any immediate effects.</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>We are experiencing the highest inflation in 40 years because of a combination of factors: the spike in consumer demand, plus supply constraints caused by lower labor force participation, bottlenecks in China due to its zero-COVID policy, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Inflation hasn’t impacted spending significantly because of savings that were retained during the pandemic, but now, many are beginning to increase their debt levels again.</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Fed is trying to reduce demand through interest rate increases and will continue to do so until it believes the economy has slowed to the goal of 2 to 3%.</p><p>-<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>However, interest rate increases can’t affect the supply chain issues, and the Fed may overshoot with a rapid drop in consumption… If it does, a recession will be likely.</p><p>Of note in terms of Vermont employment: our losses during the pandemic totaled 65.8 thousand jobs, a decline of nearly 21%. Since then, it has recovered 51.9 thousand jobs, still 4.4% below its pre-pandemic peak. It would still need to add about 14 thousand jobs to return to pre-pandemic levels. Yet, our unemployment levels are a record lows in terms of the ability to fill jobs. Our workforce crisis continues. And I just learned that not a penny of the investments my Health Care Committee put towards healthcare workforce development last spring has gotten out the door yet; it’s still caught up in administrative processes.</p><p>Those of us in the last legislative session already were being warned that fy 24 could look bad, from a budget perspective. On top of that, there is the issue of the expectations created while we had massively more federal money coming into the budget. It is much harder to give and then take away, than to give a little bit less from the start. As the surplus COVID money ends, no one will remember it was temporary funding for a temporary program; they will say services are being cut.</p><p>In addition, the new Democratic super-majority is seeing its veto-proof position as an opportunity to proceed on a number of new initiatives simultaneously: expanded childcare support, additional housing funding, paid family leave, and climate measures. Many of those don’t require an “in-your-face” tax increase. Paid family leave will be employer-employee funded; fuel consumption for heat will be cut through fuel prices, etc – hidden tax increases. I agree with the social good of many of these initiatives but have yet to see where the money will come from. If the economy is not vigorously expanding (and look back at Tom Kavet’s status report), it can only come from new taxes or added economic burdens on individuals. </p><p>The Vermont League of Cities and Towns has a sobering reminder in its annual preview for the year ahead: “In 2020, Vermont ranked second in terms of total state tax burden per capita, and fifth in terms of state and local property tax burden per capita. Thus, how we fund government at the state and local levels – and how the legislature determines its priorities – affect Vermonters in their pocketbooks every day.”</p><p>One thing that has been growing at record levels has been housing prices: in Vermont, the past two quarters reflect a highest-ever year-over-year growth. That puts the legislature in the glorious position of being able to cut the education property tax rates. Don’t be fooled by those headlines. The rates can go down because the value of property is up. You will pay the same or more depending upon how much spending goes up (and school boards have inflation to deal with as well) and whether or how much we return the excess taxes we raised this past year – a surplus that will be tempting to spend. But it also means that our crisis in housing affordability will continue to get more severe despite the massive investments already made via COVID funds. </p><p>Health care sustainability and cost growth is also chomping at our heels, exacerbated by the workforce crisis and long pre-dating COVID, yet it seems to have fallen off the radar as an urgent priority. It remains one of mine. Despite the degree of federal control that limits what we can do, there are things we could be doing to chip away at some of the inequities in access. </p><p>One of the “gap” groups that we’ve ignored thus far is those who are dropped from Medicaid when they turn 65 because a higher income threshold goes into effect. As much as we hear the call for “Medicare for all,” Medicare has some large holes and some cost burdens. I think our low-income senior citizens should get the same support that we provide our citizens before they turn 65, instead of dropping some of them off the cliff. </p><p>Last year, we asked for a report on how we might achieve that goal and how much it would cost, and I have a bill underway to put this issue directly on the table for the coming year. This would require unexpected improvement in revenues this year. It would also require that it move in front of the new and expensive priorities that have been added to the legislative wish list for 2023. </p><p>The bottom line in all of this is strengthening economic development as the basis for being able to do more of what we want for our citizens. Despite the experience I’ve built in health care systems over the years, I hope that this year I can move into playing a bigger role in building our workforce and economic stability.</p><p>So – a challenging year ahead.</p><p>Best to you for the holidays and for the new year around the corner.</p><p>***</p><p>Please contact me or district-mate Rep. Ken Goslant anytime with questions or concerns. I can be reached at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us, and Ken is at kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. We both look forward to serving you in the year ahead.</p><p><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-59738866841513794422022-10-02T17:19:00.004-07:002022-10-02T17:19:50.093-07:00House Floor Speech on Prop 5, Feb 8, 2022<p> Madam Speaker,</p><p>I rise today with no expectations or intent to change the mind of members on their votes. But I hope to convince every person on either side to leave slightly less certain than when they came in.</p><p>Eric Metaxas, author of Seven Women and the Secret of Their Greatness, in 2015, said, </p><p>“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.”</p><p>We have been certain in the past: </p><p>It was a norm to take land and kill its people; it was a norm to sell people; it was a norm to sterilize those we believed should not be procreating.</p><p>None of those actions were taken in the belief of doing wrong.</p><p>But people in power make decisions; the onus is thus on us to carefully examine our assumptions.</p><p>Our human race, worldwide and for centuries, has been wrestling with the issues of women’s rights to their bodies and abortion, struggling with the difficulty of achieving any kind of a balance.</p><p>Roe v Wade reflects on that, citing the long history of differing and changing perspectives and demonstrating why it is so hard.</p><p>It is not random chance that such great division has lasted for so long and to such depths of convictions. It is because the issue is, itself, so very hard.</p><p>One way to examine our own assumptions is to look to elsewhere in the world, and the laws of other countries, especially those with similar values of pluralism as our own.</p><p>Where does the right to reproductive autonomy protect unlimited access to abortion without any limit on gestational age? </p><p>The only nations allowing unrestricted elective abortions at any time are Canada, China, the Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, and Vietnam. </p><p>Missing from that list are most of those we think of as among the most progressive nations, and in fact, many of them have some mandatory threshold even for the earliest abortions. </p><p>A few examples: </p><p>In Germany, first trimester abortions are only permitted under a condition of mandatory counseling 3 days in advance; they are permitted later in pregnancy only if the pregnancy is found to pose significant danger to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. </p><p>But Germany is perhaps not the best example. We would expect great caution after its Nazi history; abortion was severely punished for Aryan women but permitted where the parents were Jewish -- it sharply distinguished between life that was deemed worthy, and what were called, ‘unworthy lives.’ In 1935 the Nazis introduced a ‘eugenic justification’ for abortion in the criminal code, and in 1943 they supplemented [it] with a clause demanding the death penalty for abortion ‘in cases where the vitality of the German people [was] threatened.’</p><p>So let’s look at instead to a few other samples: </p><p>Sweden permits abortion on the request of the pregnant woman only until the 18th week. After the 18th week, it requires an evaluation and permission through the National Board of Health and Welfare which must find an exceptional circumstance. None are permitted after viability.</p><p>In England, abortion is allowed during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy but those must be for socio-economic or health reasons-- (that limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 in 1991 to reflect advances in technology that enable the very premature to survive.) Beyond that, it is only permitted for significant medical reasons.</p><p>In Switzerland, abortion is legal during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, upon a condition of counseling, for women who state that they are in distress. It is only legal after 12 weeks for threat of severe physical or psychological damage to the woman.</p><p>So if we see this as an easy question – as reproductive rights preeminent in all circumstances -- we stand almost alone against views worldwide and, </p><p>We stand against Roe v Wade</p><p>Because, for those who look to Roe v Wade as bedrock: </p><p>It struggled with those choices and did not utterly reject any right of society to prioritize the value of a developing life. </p><p>In finding a role for the right of privacy, it also said, </p><p>“The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus.”</p><p>And it then flatly rejected the argument, quote, “that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses.”</p><p>This proposed constitutional amendment denies balancing.</p><p>It locks in a restriction on state interference unless there is a “compelling interest.” That still leaves the decision to the courts if the court deems it a situation where constitutional rights are in conflict, but it becomes the only constitutional right which pre-establishes the standard for how the court must balance rights, giving reproductive autonomy pre-eminence in a way not given to any other right. </p><p>The “compelling interest” and “least restrictive means” language is a test that the courts established for how they weigh competing rights. </p><p>By inserting that language, we prescribe how the court must interpret the constitution. Yet at the same time, we also turn over to the courts a completely new, undefined term to interpret – “reproductive autonomy” – requiring multiple, unforeseeable, court interpretations in the future. </p><p>Although abortion is never directly referenced in the language, we know that in current legislative intent, abortion is the core impetus for this proposal. So, I want to turn to 3 issues within that particular debate:</p><p>-- Is a developing embryo or fetus a person, who therefore has rights? </p><p>-- Is the choice of abortion a reproductive health care right, a matter of equity, potentially putting two rights into conflict? </p><p>-- And then, is arguing for one perspective forcing the religion of some, over other people?</p><p>First, is this embryo, then fetus, a person?</p><p>It is obviously living, and human, not turtle – but the question is when “personhood” attaches to it.</p><p>If we divide those -- between human life and having personhood – we are saying some human lives are not fully people. </p><p>Not yet fully persons. </p><p>Where have we heard that before in our history, as a way to dismiss the centrality of equality among human lives, in order to claim the superiority of the rights of one group over the other?</p><p>The history of humankind is deeply engrained with the stain of dividing between fit and unfit, those deemed less than fully human.</p><p>Our own Supreme Court once allowed Black lives to be counted as less. The Supreme Court also allowed “unfit lives” – Black, poor, indigenous, sexually different, disabled – to be denied the right to procreate, upholding eugenic sterilization laws with the words, </p><p>if I may quote, Madam Speaker, </p><p>“It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”</p><p><br /></p><p>We have always used different labels to distinguish the wanted and the unwanted, so that we keep the unwanted as not fully one of us, not fully persons. </p><p>When a wanted pregnancy ends in a miscarriage, we say, “she lost her baby.” No one says she lost her embryo or her fetus. Because it was wanted, and that defines its humanity as a baby.</p><p>Parents now share pictures of their babies in the womb by ultrasound – “look at our baby,” not “look at our embryo” -- yet many recoil at the thought of requiring someone to look at the same photo before deciding to abort. We don’t want that humanity to be visible if it is unwanted.</p><p>Do we really want to use being wanted or not to distinguish between two kinds of life in the womb: one a fetus, not a person, and the other a human baby?</p><p>Second, is this an issue of health care and reproductive rights?</p><p>People biologically have testicles and ovaries for the sole purpose of reproduction. The womb was biologically designed to nurture and protect the embryo that results from joining of sperm and egg. </p><p>It was biologically designed for that purpose inside and as a part of another person’s body. The fact that biology leads to the start of an embryo does not mean it is being compelled on someone. In most cases there is at least implicit consent to the fact that it might happen, even if not intended. Individuals, inherently, do control their reproductive decisions: that right to choose whether to reproduce and create offspring. But once that biological reproduction has already occurred because conception has occurred, that choice has been made. </p><p>Simply because the embryo’s survival depends upon the protection of the womb does not make it the property of, or merely an appendage of the person bearing it. Removing it – which results in its death – is not reasonably defined as health care.</p><p>Third: Am I forcing my religion on others by perceiving and arguing for these rights? Roe v Wade doesn’t assert that. It underscores the right of a society – not a religion -- to have an interest in a developing life.</p><p>Who I am, and how my conscience is formed, is about my personal integrity in responding to the world. It is not about isolating religion from the rest of my self. A democratic dialogue is about sharing competing perspectives about our world views in trying to reach social consensus. Those perspectives include the ethics, morals, and yes, religion, of any person engaged in it. </p><p>Demanding that people segment out their religion from their selves as criteria for entering public debate is wrong. A component of a person’s belief system is not being imposed on others any more than any majority imposes its perspective on others when it shares its values in the effort to build the values of a society – values ultimately established as laws.</p><p>If there is a risk of imposition of values, it is in the refusal to adopt conscience protection for health professionals who believe that participating in abortion violates their ethics or their religious views, telling them they cannot choose a medical profession if they are not willing to participate. </p><p>Not too many years ago we argued for no smoking laws in bars not on public health grounds, but on the rights of a person to choose a profession as bartender without being subjected to tobacco smoke. </p><p>Yet we have refused to protect the right of a person to choose a profession in health care without being compelled to uphold access to abortion. Adopting Proposal 5 without first adopting conscience protection establishes a legislative intent regarding its priorities. Conscience protection will be argued as an unconstitutionally imposed obstacle for some individuals’ decisions on their reproductive autonomy. Even laws that allow for licensing standards or hospital regulations or ethics standards may be found to violate the constitution as obstacles.</p><p>I cannot accept that we are not deeply harming society by disregarding life in the womb, and I see no compelling rationale to draw the line between life and human personhood at birth, any more than at the transition from embryo to fetus, or the transition to full cognitive maturity at what we now recognize as not occurring until the mid 20’s. </p><p>That line defining “maturity and responsibility for behavior” has shifted with science… why would we not see shifts over time in the rational recognition of attachment of personhood? Quickening has long been replaced by ultrasound.</p><p>But I also cannot contemplate an image of a person in restraints for 9 months, being forced to carry, unwanted, that other person in their womb. It is painful to think that the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course could be radically altered by something as potentially unpredictable as the failure of a contraceptive. </p><p>And I believe no compassionate society would ever criminally punish a person who acts on the desperation of feeling trapped by their own body having betrayed and taken control away from them.</p><p>So yes, it does make a difference if that other life is being sustained within someone’s body who does not want it there. </p><p>But that doesn’t turn it into being solely about women’s health care or reproductive freedom. </p><p>Refusing the recognition that this contradiction exists is the wrong way to address this hard, hard issue, because it takes it outside of anyone other than the person who is carrying that baby and denies the validity of society having any interest in the liberty and dignity of that other life. </p><p>I have no solution between these colliding realities.</p><p>50 years ago as a college freshman when Roe v Wade was decided, I did think it was simple and clear: the murder of a human life, beginning at conception, could never be acceptable. </p><p>It is not simple and clear.</p><p>Our world offers no solutions – world views have been in debate for decades, for centuries; views throughout the world remain torn.</p><p>I believe that is the core of what is wrong with Proposal 5.</p><p>It takes a deeply ethical dilemma that divides good people – all of them good, caring people – and it chooses the most absolute extreme of one side of a debate that has and continues to divide society so passionately and profoundly.</p><p>It is out of step with a world that continues to be conflicted. </p><p>It claims the solution as simple: that it is only about reproductive freedom and nothing else.</p><p>And it proposes that view to be engraved in our constitution.</p><p>Good people have in the past made grievous mistakes and violated human rights -- whether through imperialism or slavery or eugenics. Perspectives of time make us recognize the evil, but in their time they were in accord with their society’s values. </p><p>In its time, colonialism and the massacre of indigenous people was not recognized as wrong, because conquerors had the right to claim new lands and new property rights and to kill for that purpose.</p><p>In its time, many leaders of our country did not recognize slavery as a fundamental wrong, because those lives were not recognized with equivalent value or humanity to their own. Slaves could be hunted down and killed because property rights were at stake, and the right to own property is a fundamental right.</p><p>In its time, many respected citizens did not recognize eugenics as wrong, because people unfit to reproduce did not have equal rights, and society had a right to prevent unwanted children from being born and being a burden on society. </p><p>Planned Parenthood removed the name of Margaret Sanger, a eugenics supporter, from its New York affiliate building in 2020 with an acknowledgement that it was, </p><p>“both a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color.” </p><p>In other words, the planning of parenthood was part of an agenda to curtail the growth of unwanted groups of people, thereby identified as persons of lesser value.</p><p><br /></p><p>I cannot justify assigning value, and discriminating, based upon age or degree of dependency on the body of another person any more than upon race, sexual orientation, intellectual acumen, disability, the ability to conquer, political power or color of skin.</p><p>It is irresponsible of us to propose an all-or-nothing, extreme perspective to the voters of Vermont. Those who perceive a need to protect Roe v Wade will be forced to go far beyond it, to a far more extreme position.</p><p>I will vote no on Proposal 5.</p><p>But we are all here today with the intent to do the right thing – to protect human rights. </p><p>To protect human rights.</p><p>We simply see those rights under very different lenses.</p><p>What will time tell us about decisions we make in our era? </p><p>What will we need to apologize for; be forgiven for; be asked to make reparations for? </p><p>We don’t know. We can’t know.</p><p>But we should not have that fatal hubris to believe that we have 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.</p><p>The way any of us see things is not necessarily everything there is.</p><p>Let us all have the humility to leave today a slight bit less certain that our perspective can stand the test of time.</p><p>Thank you, Madam Speaker</p><div><br /></div>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-41323083451861152142022-05-15T07:58:00.002-07:002022-05-15T07:58:32.293-07:00May 15, 2022 End-of-Session Update<p> The 2021-22 legislative session ended on Thursday with passage of an $8.3 billion budget. Of that, 2.8 is state general fund revenue, 1.9 is the property tax part of the education fund and 3.5 is federal funding. We also passed two tax bills, one with $40 million in tax relief, and the other, the annual education funding bill, with $20 million in a rate reduction from last year’s surplus and another $15 million reduction resulting from anticipated revenues this year. It was a high stakes week, with two efforts at an override of vetoes by the governor that both failed by a single vote as a result of just a few Democrats who did not support their caucus position. </p><p>This is a summary of the major bills, without as much of my usual commentary, because there were so many. That’s typical of the last week, which is a headlong dash to get bills wrapped up before agreement is reached between House and Senate on the tax and budget bills, which mark the end.</p><p>***</p><p>Budget</p><p>Huge investments were made using the remainder of the federal COVID rescue funds. These included workforce and economic recovery ($19 million in state general funding and $65.5 in federal COVID funds), housing, broadband, water and sewer, and climate initiatives including weatherization and $45 million in grants for municipalities for energy resilience measures.</p><p>It was a balanced budget that still allowed for $40 million in tax refunds or credits but included a number of new state positions – some temporary, but many permanent – as well as program increases in the base budget (those that will continue year-after-year, rather than one-time initiatives like the one from COVID funds.) I agreed with many of those key investments, though not all. The community mental health system has been seriously underfunded for years, for example, and we included a crucial eight percent increase for them, at a cost of $26 million. We have to vote on new spending on a one-bill-at-a-time basis, however, without the ability to see the full picture.</p><p>What is scary this year is the degree of uncertainty regarding how much we increased budget areas through blending with federal money, enhancing the ability to maximize the money yet muddying the question of what the base budget will look like next year. We delegate to the Appropriations Committee the job of pulling it all together and deciding on how to balance all those issues. When it comes out on an 11-0 tri-partisan vote of committee members, as it did this year, we have to trust in their judgment. I supported the budget; it passed the House on a 133-3 vote.</p><p>I did make one plea to my colleagues. We pass multiple bills every year asking for reports to be written – sometimes by a specific agency and other times through creation of a task force or work group. These cost time and money. They are important. We don’t have the time to delve deeply into complex topics; we need to ask for better information and more input. But all too often, a new session begins, and attention has turned elsewhere. The reports don’t result in action. Sometimes they are not even read. “Read them,” I begged.</p><p>***</p><p>Taxes</p><p>I voted against both tax bills, despite the fact that both returned some money to some taxpayers. I don’t think the money was targeted in the right ways.</p><p> The annual yield bill, which sets the property tax rate to fund Vermont's PreK–12 education system, projects an average homestead tax rate of $1.385 which is considerably lower than it was last year. That includes a return of $20 million out of the $95 million that was surplus this year. The surplus was from raising more in taxes than was needed, but we spent $65 million of those surplus taxes instead of returning them.</p><p>Most were worthy investments. It creates a new program in our career and technical education centers for building trades. It sets aside $40 million for addressing PCB chemical contaminants in our schools. It also allocates $29 million to expand free school meals to all students regardless of income. Since this is a one-time surplus, we will need new funds to continue it next year. Under review for its future funding is expanding the base for the sales tax. The irony is that the sales tax is our most regressive tax, meaning those with the lowest income use a much higher percent of their total income when they pay this tax on purchases. So lower-income families would be contributing more to pay for meals for higher income kids.</p><p>The second tax bill reduced $160 million in surplus revenues by returning some money to some taxpayers. The biggest chunk of that $40 million in tax relief was $32 million for a $1,000 check per child under age six for every family with an income under $125,000 (continuing but with a gradual reduction up to a cap of $175,000.) At the same time, the refundable tax credit for child or dependent care was increased from 50 to 72 percent of the federal level and the earned income tax credit was increased from 36 to 38 percent of the federal. “Refundable” means it is received as a check if the amount is greater than the taxes that were paid in.</p><p>Student loan interest will now be deductible for those earning $120,000 or less. The level at which Social Security income will be exempt from taxes was increased from $45,000 to $50,000, followed by partial exemption up until reaching $75,000. A new exemption was created for civil service retirement and military retirement income. Both exempt the first $10,000 of income for those earning $60,000 or less, with a graduated reduction up to an income of $75,000.</p><p>Both the Social Security and the military retirement exclusion were considerably less than what many of us had pressed for, and what the governor had asked for, and it continues to place us at a major disadvantage compared to what other states do for older residents and retired military. I voted no, but it passed on a 144-4 based on its many positive aspects.</p><p>***</p><p>Veto Overrides</p><p>The House voted 99-51 to override two vetoes, which was one vote less than the two-thirds majority required. There were slight differences in how legislators voted on each. One bill was a Burlington charter change permitting “no cause” rental terminations; I had voted against the original bill and I voted no on the override.</p><p>The other was the Clean Heat bill establishing required reduction in the uses of fossil fuels for heating. I voted against this bill when it came through the House, because the program design and implementation was turned over completely to a state agency without us even knowing what it might cost Vermonters in home heating. The Senate amended the bill to require the agency to bring a proposal back to the legislature and require a new vote after we received and reviewed the details, before any implementation could begin. On that basis I voted to support the bill, and therefore also voted for the (unsuccessful) override.</p><p>A bit of an ugly scenario developed because the “swing vote” that lost the override came from a Democrat who had changed his mind just a day prior. He was pressured intensely by his caucus to change his vote through a rarely used special procedure that allows someone who voted “yes” to ask for reconsideration the next day. He held to his vote. If there had been a re-vote, I had already decided I would change my own vote on principle based on the coercion that was used on that member. That would have preserved the original 99-51 vote.</p><p>The week before, the governor’s veto was rejected unanimously by both House and Senate after he objected to the compromise bill worked out with union support to reform the state pension program. When the legislature adjourned, we did not set a veto session date, meaning there will be no attempt to override any vetoes of bills from this week. That includes one expected to be vetoed, a controversial proposal to restructure the environmental review process for Act 250 development decisions.</p><p>***</p><p>Other Big Bills</p><p>Workforce: Looking for a degree? Interested in nursing? Now is the time to check into the major expansion in scholarship and loan repayment opportunities. If it’s in a field that Vermont has a particular shortage, a one-year commitment to work in Vermont can be traded for a year of scholarship funding or repayment.</p><p>Environment: A number of bills added attention to the environment, but parts were mixed and matched at the last moment. One that survived was the expansion of the current use tax program to include old growth forests that are being conserved. A controversial bill to change how we recycle bottles and expanding the category was passed by the House last year. The Senate finally took it up last week, was divided on the question, and let it die for lack of time.</p><p>Housing: Initiatives include $15 million to support the construction of homes that middle income residents can afford. It also includes $4 million to help people repair and upgrade manufactured homes, including down payment assistance for new energy efficient homes. An additional $20 million is aimed at helping owners fix up homes and apartments so that they can be rented and to renovate properties into accessory dwelling units.</p><p>Education: The Senate accepted the major revisions to pupil “weighting” that will shift how much education tax must be raised locally. Northfield and Berlin were among the few who will see little change, up or down. The process for towns which want to withdraw from a school district was also rewritten.</p><p>Cannabis: As part of approval of various rules for the market that will open in October, the House held firm to its position that edibles and liquid concentrates of greater that 60 percent THC (indicating potency) cannot be sold to the public. There is medical evidence of significantly higher health risks at this level. The Senate had wanted no restrictions to have the Vermont market on par with other nearby states. </p><p>Hunting: Bills passed in the final week on standards against hunting unless for the use of food or pelt, a plan for development of “best practice” for trapping, and planned regulation of using dogs for hunting coyote. An amendment was attached to one on the House floor to make it legal to use noise suppressors when hunting. Most other states permit this, and our “doctor in the House” (his regular job is as an MD) made a passionate plea for protection against hearing loss.</p><p>***</p><p>Health Care Finale</p><p>Two significant bills from my Health Care committee came back from the Senate and were passed in the closing week. One sets limits on the power of prescription benefit managers to control which pharmacies can fill prescriptions (currently they restrict them to pharmacies they own), which will help open up competition and protect independent pharmacies from being shortchanged. </p><p>The other set the parameters for how the Green Mountain Care Board and Agency of Human Services will engage public participation in new efforts to reform health care payment structures. Cost containment seems like a constant uphill battle. Expect major increases in insurance premiums for next year. Insurers are asking the Board for significant rate increase approval, based upon expected hospital rate increases driven by COVID, inflation, and workforce shortages. Also last week: the governor signed our new telehealth bill, setting standards and oversight to allow continued use by out-of-state providers.</p><p>***</p><p>Tidbits</p><p>Last minute rushing inevitably results in at least a few poorly crafted bills. A bill to update liquor tax rules added a definition for what most of us would call “hard cider” – but it defines these alcoholic beverages as “cider.” I know that when I am offered a glass of cider, I assume it’s not fermented. I said on the floor that if I am back next year, my first bill will be to amend it to read, “hard cider.” Afterwards, a liquor department administrator came over to me and thanked me, saying that he – as a person with 15 years of sobriety– couldn’t believe he had missed it. The department hopes to use internal rules to ensure that the labelling of “cider” still makes clear when it has alcohol.</p><p>Another bill directed police to collect and send data on all law enforcement “encounters” for compilation in a state database to track gender, race and other characteristics. We do this now for roadside stops. Does “encounter” include responding to a tourist looking for directions, I asked? The amount of new data collection could be massive, and expensive. The reporter of the bill acknowledged that it included no definition of what an “encounter” was. With the help of a colleague, I intercepted the bill in the Senate and convinced the bill sponsor there to drop that component in the bill in exchange for our promise to get House rules suspended to expedite the amended version so that the underlying bill would not die. As rewritten, the commissioner will come back with recommended definitions and feasibility for data collections.</p><p>I also reported a resolution to amend our House rules to waive our privilege to ignore the Americans with Disabilities Act. This was essentially a decades-long oversight that only came to light this year. Although we come under the ADA, we have immunity from enforcement within our own body, if we don’t comply. The new rules adopt ADA standards for ourselves.</p><p>I also reported a resolution for my committee that came from the Senate affirming protection of access to best-practice health care for transgender youth. It was adopted on an 134-5 roll call. Resolutions like this are symbolic only. This one was driven by restrictions popping up in other states. Symbolic statements can have value but shouldn’t take time and energy away from our real work. It got a bit ridiculous on the last day of the session when we debated a resolution “urging the President and Congress to spearhead a global effort to prevent nuclear war.” Huh? This is part of our job? And they are going to listen to us? </p><p>***</p><p>Big changes are afoot for next year. More than half of the chairs of House committees are retiring, including Northfield’s former representative Maxine Grad (from prior to the last redistricting in 2012.) She has served 22 years. Of the six statewide offices, there have been four departures so far. Along with the open US Senate and House seats, it will be an active campaign season. There will also be the two constitutional amendments on the ballot. One eliminates reference to slavery and involuntary servitude. The other protects “reproductive liberty,” aka protects our current abortion law, which allows abortion for any reason up until the moment of birth.</p><p>***</p><p>All my past updates are available on my blog at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com. Please contact me or Ken Goslant 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>END OF UPDATE *** END OF UPDATE *** END OF UPDATE</p><p>DISCLOSURE: CANDIDATE ADVERTISEMENT</p><p>I have made the decision to run for re-election; I think I am still contributing to helping make our state a better place for all of us. Thank you to those who signed my petition to be placed on the ballot. It is not extremely expensive to run for a House seat, but it does cost some money for brochures, advertising and the like. My funds are pretty much depleted after several years of not doing active fundraising. I would welcome support sent to: Donahue for House, 633 North Main Street, Northfield, VT 05663. Just a small contribution -- $10 or $20 -- means a lot!</p><p>All campaign finance reports (including contribution levels and expenditures) are available to the public on the Secretary of State’s wen site at: campaignfinance.vermont.gov/</p><div><br /></div>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-63337782230784306892022-05-08T07:38:00.004-07:002022-05-08T07:38:45.302-07:00May 8, 2022 Legislative Update<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Lots
to celebrate last week!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
welcomed Tony and Gail Mariano to the statehouse for a resolution honoring
Tony’s amazing record of accomplishments at Norwich. Then Saturday was Green-Up
Day, great work, everyone! And Happy Mother’s Day, Sunday.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Unfortunately,
it did not also mark the end of our legislative session. We are carrying on
finishing the budget and other key bills into at least mid-week.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Tough
Decisions<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
passed a bill in the House last week – I reported it for my committee, which
had voted for it unanimously – that may very well hurt some Vermonters with a
new price spike in health insurance. We were faced with a choice: how do we
place fewer people at risk? Which is the lesser of two evils? Our hands were
tied by the failure of the federal government to make a clear decision in one
direction or the other about extending the extra subsidies for people who buy their
insurance on the health exchange, created as part of the COVID rescue package.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Though
I’d be happy to talk directly with anyone interested in an hour-long primer on
the difference between merged or unmerged individual and small group markets, I
won’t attempt to explain the hows and whys of it all, here. The best I could
tell my colleagues on the House floor was that if we guessed wrong, we could
still attempt to make up for it next year by finding a way to get a credit to
those who were hit with extra costs. We cannot legally bind a future
legislature, but those of us who may return can make good on a commitment, I
told them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In
the meantime, a vignette on behind-the-scenes-type statehouse action: Our
committee agreed with my suggestion that we ask our state insurance regulators
to study options for next year to resolve the “merged versus unmerged” dilemma
on a more permanent basis. Adding that to the bill with only a few days left in
the session would place it at risk of not making deadlines to get it passed,
since it would need to go back to the Senate to be taken up there, be accepted
and voted on. Procedurally, that can add multiple days.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">So,
I had 24 hours to get pre-agreement by the members of the Senate Committee of
jurisdiction that if we sent it back, they would immediately accept the proposed
amendment. I also needed to get agreement from House leaders to use rules
suspensions to expedite its journey to the Senate. I dashed around to gather
votes and commitments, and 24 hours later we passed the bill, with amendment,
in the House and rushed it down the hall; it was ready for Senate action on
Monday, with the skids pre-greased for approval.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Suspending
our own rules to expedite bills gets common in the crush of the final days,
since bills that do not pass will die and have to start from ground zero next
year, no matter how much time and how many witnesses were invested in the
process. About a decade ago I objected forcefully about rule suspensions that required
to vote on long, complex bills without even time to read them, and that drove a
new, informal rule (the “24-hour rule,” or sometimes, “the Donahue rule”) that
we would not vote to suspend rules with less than 24 hours unless everyone
agreed they were comfortable with moving forward. Since a suspension of rules
requires a ¾ vote, a minority party can enforce this agreement, but that has
never been necessary. It has been respected.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">In
Conference<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
mega-economic development and workforce bill is very slowly grinding through
the process of a conference committee between Senate and House to resolve
differences. One subcomponent is a series of healthcare workforce initiatives
that originated from my Health Care Committee, so I was assigned as the representative
to an unofficial sub-conference committee to hash out those differences with
the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. We bartered among our priorities. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">From
the House side, it was all about addressing the nursing shortage through
significantly increasing nursing scholarship and loan repayment funding and
providing funds for nurse faculty short-term bonuses. We also designed a
“pipeline” program modeled after an initiative at Central Vermont Medical
Center that provides funding to backfill staff positions while other staff are
paid for classroom hours while advancing their careers – a nursing assistant
becoming a registered nurse, for example. All of these include the exchange of
a student commitment to work for a year in Vermont in exchange for each year of
financial support.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Senate wanted to add other programs and reduce funding for ours, but we were
both held to the same total investment of $11.9 million. As one example of
compromises, we agreed to cut our pipeline program from $3 million to $2.5m
(they had cut it to $2m) to move money to a Senate program. Although we
achieved an agreement, it remains only a recommendation to the conferees on the
main bill, so we will have to watch and wait for the outcome.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I
did ensure that Norwich was included in access to the faculty funding, along
with a capital construction share of $200,000 of the $1 million allocated for
nursing simulation lab expansion among nursing programs in Vermont.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Being
Contrary<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
timing wasn’t planned, but I ended up on a minority side of my own party on
several important votes last week. One of the strengths I have always seen in
the Republican caucus in the Vermont House is that no one is castigated for
voting based upon one’s own judgement and principles.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I
had voted against the Clean Heat bill last month, and I made my objection
clear: while it established a program to transition away from fossil fuels, it
turned the actual decision-making over to the Public Utility Commission to
implement it. We were voting without even a clue as to what it might cost for
Vermonters. It was the same reason I voted against the Climate Solutions Act two
years ago. We were delegating our authority – and our responsibility for
consequences – to others.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Senate got the Clean Heat bill and added a requirement that before a single
rule for the start of any implementation could be adopted, the rules would have
to be provided to the legislature, which would have to authorize action by a
new vote. When this bill returned to the House last week, I voted for it. We
will be able to fully review the program that is developed and proposed before
anything can go into effect. That was not enough reassurance for the Governor,
who vetoed it a few days later. So, it will be back before us in the week ahead
for another override vote. With a House roll call vote of 87-38, the outcome
since not yet clear, since 25 members were not present. An override requires a 2/3<sup>rd</sup>
majority, meaning 100 votes of the full 150.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Overrides<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It
is proving to be a very busy month for override votes. The Governor vetoed the
pension bill, which had been brokered by a negotiating team established last
year. The new plan does little to solve structural problems for the long term,
probably making some overly optimistic assumptions. But it is still an
important step towards addressing a fiscal crisis, so I supported it. In fact,
it received unanimous support. The Governor said he vetoed it on principal
despite knowing the override was inevitable. And it was, indeed. Not a single
person changed their vote based solely on the veto, so the override was also
unanimous. Still pending are override votes on the Burlington charter change
banning no fault lease terminations and the housing bill that includes a rental
housing registry, both of which I voted against.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Another
vetoed bill is still drifting on the calendar, where it will remain: a
construction contractor registry. Instead of facing the prospect of failing to
achieve an override, the majority party embedded the rejected bill into a
much-wanted housing bill. But it came with an olive branch. The threshold for
requiring registration was moved from projects costing $3,000 to $10,000. I
think that is a reasonable consumer protection effort, so I voted yes on it
this past week. It will be on the Governor’s desk shortly.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Tacking
Bills On Bills<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Near
the end of a session, it’s often said that in the disputes between House and
Senate versions every bill becomes either a hostage or a Christmas tree. A
hostage is a bill the other side wants that is held back until they produce the
one you are waiting for. A Christmas tree is a bill that keeps gaining
“ornaments” – other bills tacked on that otherwise would be long past deadline,
or that the other side has refused to take up.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">One
environmental bill I supported that came from the Senate had a separate bill
attached to it by a House committee last week. That bill had already passed the
House, but the Senate had chosen to not take it up. I had opposed that other bill
at the time. I think it does damage to our environmental court process and will
add considerable cost. I asked for the bill to be divided, but when both parts
still passed and were re-combined, I voted against the final version. We have
yet to see how the Senate will respond.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">All
my past updates are available on my blog at
representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com. Please contact me or Ken Goslant 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.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-53757630113752542822022-04-23T08:57:00.002-07:002022-04-23T08:57:28.441-07:00April 23, 2022 Legislative Update<p>If we are truly going to finish the session by May 6 – a week ahead of what we are budgeted for – everyone’s heads will be spinning in the last few days. Most major bills have not even reached the point of a conference committee to resolve competing House and Senate versions. The budget just went to conference on Friday.</p><p>What is the big rush? Three members of the Senate are running for U.S. Congress member Peter Welch’s open seat, and they want to get onto the campaign trail. Hopefully we will not succumb to pressure by voting bills through without even time to read them. I’ve fought that in the past and certainly would again.</p><p>***</p><p>Health Care Example</p><p>My committee just voted out a significantly changed version of the major health care bill of the session, which was initiated in the Senate. It still has to clear our Appropriations Committee, so it won’t be voted on by the House until near the end of the week. That would only leave a week for the Senate to assess our changes, push back, negotiate, and then move an agreement through both House and Senate, which would not be possible without suspending our ordinary rules and expediting the process.</p><p>The hospital association opposes the bill, fearing that cost-containment efforts will force cuts in services, but they testified that our version is better than the Senate’s. The real focus of the bill is how to ensure the sustainability of our rural hospitals. According to media accounts, the Senate does not like our version, which takes a more thoughtful and inclusive route to the next phase of health care payment reform and the negotiations with the federal government necessary to achieve them.</p><p>***</p><p>Intra-House Disputes</p><p>When one party has control, disputes between committees never reach the surface publicly as a debate on the House floor would; the House Speaker will resolve it in advance. I can’t predict what will happen with my committee’s bill protecting patient genetic information.</p><p>The issue is whether life insurance companies can access patient tests for genetic markers which do not result in a diagnosis but may indicate an increase in risk for a disease. We placed health care as the priority to encourage testing and preventive measures, passing a bill that blocks life insurer access. The Commerce Committee, however, is worried about an impact on the health of life insurance companies. Right now, it doesn’t look as though there is a compromise available, so whether our bill makes the light of day may well be decided in the Speaker’s office.</p><p>***</p><p>A Brilliant Opportunity</p><p>Amidst all the angst over ways to help reduce carbon emissions, there is one easy place where we could all step up. According to an estimate cited in a bill we passed this week, “if every motor vehicle in Vermont reduced unnecessary idling by just one minute per day, over the course of a year Vermonters would save over 1,000,000 gallons of fuel and over $2 million in fuel costs, and Vermont would reduce CO2 emissions by more than 10,000 metric tons.”</p><p>Don’t panic; we didn’t just pass a bill to ban idling… it’s already the law! This is a section of a routine motor vehicle law update bill that simply directs the state to increase public awareness. If you see more public service announcements reminding you that in Vermont, “A person shall not cause or permit operation of the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehicle for more than five minutes in any 60-minute period while the vehicle is stationary,” that will be why.</p><p>***</p><p>Legislators Are Special?</p><p>We passed two new bills that are problematic, at least in part, for me. One creates a new crime for making threats to an elected official – separate from what the law already says about threating. I think we are flirting with free speech and the right to “petition for redress of grievances.”</p><p>Serious threats against anyone are covered under existing law. Yes, I’ve had constituents who may use some hyperbole in expressing anger over legislative actions. But I don’t want to see a chilling effect on political debate based upon some folks who may cross the line and need to act with greater civility.</p><p>I think we also really insulted our state’s physicians in our new legislative ethics law. I absolutely agree we needed to set ethics standards; we’re one of the few states without any. But some years back we banned physicians from even accepting a free cup of coffee at conferences being hosted by pharmaceutical companies, lest they be “bought off” by it. We legislators, however, can accept up to $100 without fear that our motives will be impugned.</p><p>***</p><p>Removing an Exemption</p><p>A question has arisen about the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and its applicability to our House proceedings. There have been federal court cases that establish that the independence of the process means that state legislatures are exempt from laws that we have not placed on ourselves. I believe strongly in the importance of this kind of separation of powers, but I also believe strongly in the importance of equality in access to our government for all. I am pushing a proposal in our House Rules Committee to adopt an affirmation that we assert our exemption – followed by setting our own rule that we choose to be governed by the standards of the ADA.</p><p>***</p><p>The Housing Registry</p><p>We seem to be explosively increasing areas of government bureaucracy and the number of state-funded positions this year. That includes six and a half new positions to enforce a new statewide rental safety oversight process that would replace local oversight. One Appropriations Committee member who acknowledged being part of the problem in terms of earlier bills this session voted against this one in his committee saying, “enough is enough.”</p><p>It was vetoed last year and once again enough Democrats joined Republicans in opposition that although it did pass, it would not survive a governor’s veto. This year, it was embedded within a bill with major federal funds for grants to help improve rental housing conditions, and those are funds everyone wants to see move forward. So, it will be brinksmanship on the legislature banking on the governor caving in, versus moving the funding to a separate bill and letting the registry bill die.</p><p>***</p><p>Tough Decisions</p><p>One difficult part of voting on bills that require budget investments is our inability to have a big picture in front of us. If we know we cannot have it all – and there is certainly no way government can pay for everything that everyone would like to see it do – how do we identify the priorities? It comes down to the big budget in the end, but that is made up of many of the components we vote on separately as the initiatives come before us. If you vote for each of the individual bills as being good, legitimate initiatives, it wouldn’t be fair to turn around in the end and say, “That has added too much and I’m voting against the budget.”</p><p>And thus, the dilemma of the proposal for universal school meals. Despite the appearance of simply “helping the rich” since poor kids already get free meals, there are legitimate reasons for it. A large number of eligible (hungry) kids don’t get meals for a myriad of reasons, including the fact that some struggling families are overwhelmed even just in trying to fill out complex paperwork.</p><p>The feds have paid for universal meals for two years under COVID. The current proposal would extend that for a year at a cost of $30 million paid for with “extra” money in the state’s Education Fund, for further review for a funding (tax) source next year. “Extra” money actually means that there is a surplus ($90 million) because last year the tax rate raised more money than we predicted to be needed for school budgets. It’s your money being proposed for various uses over and above last year’s education costs.</p><p>There are other demands for it. Most proposals include returning some to taxpayers. There are also school needs to address chemical contaminants and deferred maintenance. Which take priority? Where do we get the biggest bang for the buck in helping those most in need?</p><p>A big concern I have regarding the current bill as it heads to the floor for Tuesday is that it includes five permanent positions in the Agency of Education for implementation, including for creating a universal income declaration form. Permanent positions don’t sound like a one-year extension. And a universal declaration form? Will that require every family to make this disclosure – even if they didn’t ask for or want free meals?</p><p>So, I’m still hesitant and waiting to hear the full floor debate.</p><p>***</p><p>Your Voices</p><p>I’ve heard from constituents on the school meals issue. How does that impact a decision on a bill? It does, in part – and by different degrees. Individual, thoughtful letters that add insights matter a lot. Petition-type communications, less so. All of these reflect serious interest by a few people but not a public referendum. We have a representative democracy, not a direct one. That means you elect your representative based on what they stand for in a broad context; hopefully I act in ways that are consistent with that and if I don’t, you do not re-elect me. </p><p>Ultimately, I need to vote based on the values I’ve expressed, not based upon limited specific constituent input on individual bills. I do listen. The impact is greater when I am more on the fence. That’s the case here – so you still have until Tuesday to share more thoughts.</p><p>***</p><p>All my past updates are available on my blog at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com. Please contact me or Ken Goslant 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.</p><div><br /></div>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-2148925503140095872022-04-10T09:37:00.001-07:002022-04-10T09:37:21.372-07:00April 10, 2022<p> When you do surveys or polling, expertise and how questions are asked can heavily influence its accuracy. But if you ask the exact same questions over time, even if the questions are not hitting on the exactly right point, the ways the responses change can still provide valuable insights.</p><p>That’s how I look at the newly released results of Vermont’s Household Health Insurance Survey, something we have been conducting every three years or so since 2005. My House Health Care Committee heard a presentation on the new numbers this past week. It is based on in-depth interviews with more than 3,000 Vermonters. If you’d like to look at it directly, it’s at www.healthvermont.gov/stats/surveys/household-health-insurance-survey</p><p>So what does it tell us, and what does it fail to tell us? Some of the key “good news” components are that we have continued to maintain the level of 97% insurance coverage in the state. In addition, of the 70,000 or so Vermonters who lost jobs during COVID, 84% were able to maintain health coverage.</p><p>On the not-so-good news front, the number of Vermonters under age 65 who are underinsured has risen from 36 to 40 percent in the past seven years, despite all the increases in financial supports. In addition, the number of those who are on Medicare without having any coverage beyond the basic Parts A and B is 64%. Those are both important numbers but require a much deeper dive. I’ll try at least sharing a shallow dive.</p><p>What does “underinsured” mean? Broadly defined it means that based upon one’s income, a person cannot get the level of health care they need because their insurance does not cover enough of the costs to protect them. A simple example would be a plan that has a $10,000 deductible for someone making $40,000 a year. They would have to pay one fourth of their income in health costs before their insurance would start paying. If almost all Vermonters have insurance but a significant percentage of them still can’t access health care, the high level of insurance coverage is not exactly comforting.</p><p>The flaw is in trying to define underinsured, so that it isn’t just based on subjective perception. The survey uses a formula. Underinsured means that either the deductible is more than 5% of household income, or current medical expenses (co-pays and deductibles paid) are greater than 10% of income for those at 200% of poverty or more or 5% of income for those below 200% of poverty. (For a single person in 2021, 200% was $25,760; for a family of four, it was $53,000.) Even though it is considered the best available definition, it’s flawed for several reasons. </p><p>First, it does not include the amount you are paying for your insurance premiums. If you are paying a staggering amount for coverage and as a result your out-of-pocket co-pays and deductibles are lower, that doesn’t get considered in the overall cost-burden of your health care. It also includes costs for health care that are not routinely covered by insurance at all which can skew the comparison of out-of-pocket costs. Finally, it doesn’t capture health savings accounts that are funded (fully or partially) by employers. If your insurance has really high co-pays but you have an HSA that covers most of them, you might still be counted as underinsured.</p><p>However, since we are using the same flawed formula every time, the relative change over the years still gives us important information. If under any definition those who fit under it are growing as a percentage, it is not good news in assessing whether our health care system is accessible and affordable.</p><p>Better Definitions?</p><p>It seems to me that in order to tackle a problem, we need to define the goal. Otherwise, if our goal is “affordable and accessible,” how do we know if we are getting closer to meeting it? </p><p>Last summer and fall, I was on our legislative study committee that was aptly titled a Task Force on Accessible, Affordable Health Care. Several of us pushed for the need to develop a definition as a first step, and there was general agreement. We had a consulting firm that was doing the legwork for our evaluation, and it began straying more into subtopics that identified various projects that might help reduce system costs, thereby impacting affordability. Setting a standard fell by the wayside. For that reason, as well as the Medicare issue that I will discuss in a moment, I voted against adopting the consultant report as our Task Force Report. </p><p>Who Are They?</p><p>Even without a definition, one would think we could identify the subgroups of people who have the least access to affordable coverage and target our problem-solving towards them. But we can’t, because much of it goes back to the fact that so much of our health coverage is employer-based. As per the updates from this year’s survey, 24% of Vermonters get their primary insurance from Medicaid, 22% from Medicare, and 49% through private companies.</p><p>Given our aging demographics, it’s no surprise that the Medicare percentage has gone from 15 to 22% since 2005. The Medicaid increase from 15 to 24% may be slightly off in this year’s data because the federal rules have forbidden reassessments of eligibility during COVID. However, much of it relates to the Affordable Care Act expansion of coverage. Of the private insurance group – which has dropped from 59% in 2005 to the current 49% in 2021 -- 10% are individual buyers on the health exchange (“Vermont Health Connect”.) Right now, as long as the increased subsidies from the federal government are in effect, most of them have some of the best accessibility. For all the remainder, who are getting insurance through their employer, we have no way of identifying what level of coverage they are receiving. </p><p>Under the Affordable Care Act, you can switch to the health exchange if your employer’s insurance is not considered “affordable,” which is defined as a premium share that is greater than 9.6% of your income. Once again, this is not a rational standard. If your premium is low because of a huge deductible and huge co-pays, tough luck; you can’t opt for the much lower costs on the exchange. The formula looks solely at the premium you pay.</p><p>There is a worse problem that affects families directly. The affordability standard is based on the single employee, without including the costs for the rest of a family, even if the employer contributes nothing towards that. This “family glitch” can leave families paying 20 percent of their income for health coverage but still without access to the exchange. One of the brightest bits of news to come out of Washington this past week is that the administration has filed for a rule change for that particular definition.</p><p>The Medicare Problem</p><p>We don’t know about employer plans, but we do know about Medicare – and it’s a disgrace. Anyone who thinks “Medicare for All” is a grand solution doesn’t know enough about Medicare. And anyone who thinks Vermont is particularly generous in health care for those with very low income doesn’t know about Medicare in Vermont.</p><p>The typical person turning 65 faces complex decisions about an array of options that will determine their coverage for the rest of their lives. Basic Medicare leaves someone with high-cost risk, because although 80% of costs are covered in general, there is no upper limit to what a person may have to pay. At a bit over $2,000 a year for “Part B”, what it does cover may be a good deal for the money, but this is already a steep price if you are on a low fixed income, and prescription coverage is extra. If you delay paying for Part B, a permanent increase of 10% a year in cost is imposed for every year of delay.</p><p>If you can afford another $3,000 or so a year, you can get very comprehensive “gap” insurance. You can also trade it all in for an “Advantage Plan” which ranges in cost from just your existing Part B premium to an added premium. Instead of having no limits on possible out-of-pocket totals, these limit them to a range around $7,500. Your provider network is also restricted. It is a good approach for some folks, but once you choose it and finish a trial period, you can lock yourself out from the full “gap” coverage option forever, or at minimum, are locked into paying a much higher premium.</p><p>The number I referenced at the start – that 64% of those on Medicare only have basic A and B coverage – is much scarier when you realize how unprotected those folks actually are. And here’s the issue if you are low income: if you at the very lowest end, you are eligible to have Medicaid on top of your Medicare. But if you are at the higher end of current Medicaid eligibility (in other words, still quite low income) and you turn 65, you lose Medicaid protection, because we change the standard to a lower income level.</p><p>You turn 65, and we drop you off the proverbial cliff – you become another of that subgroup of folks who end up paying as much as 20% of their income for health coverage. There is some assistance available to pay your premium, but Vermont offers a lot less than some other states. Our Household Insurance Survey only reviewed underinsurance among those under age 65, as if it was never an issue for those on Medicare, so we don’t know how many folks may be at this level of severe need. We have our heads in the sand. </p><p>To me, this is a huge affordability and access issue, and I pushed all last fall to include it in our Task Force study. Our consultants fell down on the job on it – which was the other reason I voted against adopting the report. This past week, my Health Care Committee voted out a bill that will focus on Medicare for the first time, looking at how to help Vermonters understand their options and what tools we may have, given that this is a totally federal program.</p><p>I pressed for an amendment that we added to this Senate bill, instructing our Department of Financial Regulation to review the “cliff” group, and what other states do to help. It might give us a first window on steps to address this particular inequity in accessible, affordable health care. </p><p>This is all only about regular health care, not about the costs of long-term care that isn’t covered at all by Medicare – a massive looming crisis as our population ages.</p><p>***</p><p>Please contact me or Rep. Ken Goslant 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.</p><p>All of my legislative updates are archived at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com</p><div><br /></div>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-38844376416954059782022-03-26T09:05:00.002-07:002022-03-26T09:05:20.212-07:00March 26, 2022<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">How
do we deal with the vast federal funding influx related to COVID? There is a
lot of rational concern about so much federal spending. This is not “federal
money.” Ultimately, only people pay taxes. We will have to pay for all of this
in the future, one way or another.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Should
we assess those funds on that basis and consider rejecting them? That would
ignore two realities. If our share among the 50 states went back to Washington,
it would be divvied up among the other 49, and we would still have to join in
paying it back without our share of the benefit. Plus, selfishly speaking, Vermont
is a “receiving state” for federal funds. In other words, we regularly receive
more federal funds back than what we pay from all our various types of federal
taxation. Some of it really is “free money” – to us.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">So,
the legislature is eagerly and rapidly spending it. It is all time-limited, to
be spent within the next several years, so we need to appropriate all the rest
of this year so that the programs and projects can be completed in time. The
mega-danger is that we become reliant on any of these programs continuing once
the federal money is all spent. In many cases it will appear to be “program
cuts” in future years, when always intended to be short-term. The state revenue
projection for the next several fiscal years is not at all rosy, so this will
put massive pressure on any ongoing programs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Money
for Bridges<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Berlin
and even more so, Northfield, would be big winners in the federal rescue money for
transportation infrastructure projects in the Transportation bill we passed in
the House this week. A new (short-term!) category for federal aid is for
bridges that are not on state roads. They will be paid 100% with the federal
grant, with no state or town matches required. Thanks to the new aid, 19 steel truss
and covered bridges were moved to an immediate priority list and will be funded
100% by the federal grant. No state match and no town match required.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Of
19 small steel truss and covered bridges statewide, Berlin has a truss bridge
on the list for the coming year and Northfield will get one truss bridge and
three covered bridges (the Cox Brook Road bridges.) Wow – five of the 19
statewide!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Money
for Workforce<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Assuming
the Senate goes along with it – which is a caveat on anything I report
regarding bills that pass the House – we are investing $42 million in efforts
to address our workforce crisis. There are significant pieces that local
residents should watch for because of the opportunities they may provide for
scholarships and loan repayments in exchange for agreeing to stay and work in
Vermont. In most cases it is a year-to-year equivalence: a year of work for a
year of scholarship or repayment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Norwich
was a big help in my work on the healthcare portion of the bill, which had a
major focus on our nursing shortage. I coordinated our health care committee’s
input to the bill, and Norwich was my “turn to” resource for the needed
terms-of-art and priorities for that sector. Its School of Nursing faces the
same challenges as the others in the state and we are not graduating nearly
enough new nurses to meet the need but are turning away students for lack of
capacity. The House bill targets the biggest barriers to increasing capacity,
and Norwich will share in the new 3-year funding that will help expand it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
testimony pointed to several key problems: nursing school faculty earn very
substantially less than in clinical positions, so they are difficult to
recruit. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The simulation labs that
students need are very expensive to maintain, let alone expand. And nurses in
the hospitals who need to supervise students in their practice work get no
added salary, so it can be hard to get volunteers given their heavy work schedules.
We added to each of these with some supplemental funding including $4 million in
COVID-supported capital funding for the simulation labs, to be shared among our
state’s nursing schools. It will help Norwich’s School of Nursing along with
the others in our state.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I’m
most excited about what we call the “pipeline” program. Central Vermont Medical
Center was a model for a program for its staff in front line care positions,
such as nursing assistants, to get nursing degrees. It was highlighted in a
recent <i>Montpelier Bridge</i> article. Many of those employees are already
committed to working in health care here, but even with a scholarship can’t
access further education because they can’t give up making an income while
taking college courses. CVMC gave students paid time off for classwork and is
seeing success, but it took seed money from grants to get it started. The $3m
in funds we set aside for this will help any health care entity, large or
small, partner with a nursing school to create a package to “grow” future
nurses from within existing staff.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
very much hope the Senate will keep these programs in the bill. Housing and
childcare are two other major workforce barriers, but those are addressed in
separate bills.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">More
Big Money<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It
was the deadline this week to get the big money bills from the House to the
Senate for their “replies” to our initiatives, so we passed the transportation
bill, the capital construction bill, the education tax rate and the state
operating budget. The state budget hit an all-time record of $8.1 billion, but
if you remove all federal funds, our state general fund – what we pay for in
state taxes – actually went down slightly from last year. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I
think we are adding too many new positions and too many new councils or boards.
One can vote against the bills creating them (which I have), but it is hard to
vote against the entire budget and the many positive things it includes based
on those disparate items that become incorporated into it. The budget passed
135-4.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Since
there are clear differences in policies that the Senate wants to advance, in
particular with all the extra federal money, I hesitate to identify what the
House is funding, since various items will be bartered back-and-forth in later
negotiations with the Senate. For example, the Senate wants to put tens of
millions into funds for businesses which paid employees who had to stay home
for COVID isolation requirements. That’s not in our budget, so it would have to
come from a reduction in something we funded.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
Senate has already passed a bill to continue the funding of universal school
meals at a price tag of roughly $40m. That program was created by the federal
government during COVID but it ends this year. Although we could continue it
next year with some of our other “COVID rescue” money, there is no source to
continue it the year after. So, a bill making it a permanent program will put
us in a future budget bind. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The
House hasn’t passed that bill yet, but it reserved money from the Education
Fund to pay for it for this next year. For right now, that fund has $90+
million in carryover from last year: more money raised from property taxes than
anticipated to meet the school budgets. The House plan includes returning $36m
to taxpayers by reducing next year’s tax rate, reserving $36m for school
lunches, and using the remainder of the excess revenue for an array of
educational needs. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I’m
not ready to support the lunch program until all the competing demands are in
front of us. Every penny spent one place is a penny not available to spend
somewhere else. Keep in mind that school lunches are already funded in full or
in part for low- and moderate-income students. The universal program expands
coverage to everyone, which has some real benefits but also subsidizes many
families who can full afford their children’s meals.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">On
the “as drafted by the House” money bills, I voted for the state budget, the
transportation budget, the workforce bill and the capital bill, but against the
education fund tax rate bill.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">A
Slew of Other Bills<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
had several late evenings on the floor to wrap up all the other bills that were
on deadline to send to the Senate, so I’ll give some brief highlights on some
major ones.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Environmental
protections: I supported a bill that set goals for increasing the amount of
protected natural forestland in our state. The committee accepted an amendment
I offered to increase clarity in the definitions. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I
opposed a bill that sets out mandates for “clean heat” and turns over all the
decision-making to create the program to a state commission. Throughout repeat
questioning on the floor, proponents acknowledged that we have no idea what it
will cost Vermonters in their future heating bills. Not even a guesstimate. So,
we are passing a large blank check, to be paid by citizens in future fees, with
no control over the program design or cost impact. The bill passed 90-42.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
passed the final 10-year redistricting plan. Our Northfield-Berlin 2-seat
district will remain the same. I have been grateful in watching how this
process proceeds in Vermont. In many states, it is rife with politics. The
focus is how to shift lines so that the party in power gains further
advantages. The plan we passed had broad tri-partisan support, 129-13. Those
voting no came from among different parties that felt a detrimental impact for
their own constituents. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">It
is nearly impossible to make everyone happy when there are constitutional
requirements on how the numbers must even out among representatives. When parts
of the state grow or shrink, those districts must change. One example on the
Senate level: Stowe has become a part of Washington County for election
purposes, instead of in its home county of Lamoille. Those folks are not happy
about it. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
passed a bill creating a “Truth and Reconciliation” Task Force to hear from
Vermonters who have been injured from state-supported laws and policies that
caused discrimination, and to consider whether there are actions we need to
take to remedy harms. Truth and Reconciliation boards have been created in
other states for the same purpose of listening and recognizing historical harm.
In Vermont, it is in follow-up of last year’s apology for the eugenics laws
that allowed the sterilization of unwanted groups of people: those in rural poverty,
those with disabilities, Abenaki people, and so-called “mixed race,” including
French-Canadian. The new Task Force will also hear from persons of color and
any other groups that have had experiences of harm.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I
helped initiate this process by starting the effort at a recognition of the
harms of eugenics some ten years ago, and I support the continuing
understanding of our history and what changes may still need to happen. I
believed, however, the price tag for the four-year Task Force, which will add
up to about $4.5m, did not need to be that high. I made several efforts to have
that budget cut back. After failing in that, I did still support the bill. It
passed on a 109-30 vote.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We
are continuing a multi-year process of reducing the upper levels of penalties
for crimes. It was frustrating – and I challenged on the floor – bill
presentations that essentially hid where reductions were. An example was
changing a crime with a sentence limit of 15 years into being a “Class C
felony” without saying what the sentence for that was. I was kept busy on the
floor trying to look each one up, and several (such as reducing the potential
sentence for burglary into an occupied home) seemed too radical without the
rationale being explained. So, I voted no.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I
supported a similar bill the next day that reduced drug possession offense
maximum sentences and shifted the focus to treatment after the bill’s presenter
– who noted my vigorous complaint the day before – did give a full explanation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Please
contact me or Rep. Ken Goslant 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.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-1573115895469637942022-03-12T14:40:00.003-08:002022-03-12T14:40:47.589-08:00March 12. 2022 Legislative Update<p> Between last Friday and the start of this week, no fewer than 23 bills were placed on the calendar for floor action. It may be a new record, but they won’t all actually be debated yet, as many will be referred to another committee for further review first. Most often, that’s the Appropriations Committee. If a bill will create a new cost to the budget, it has to be verified that there is actually enough money to take the project on.</p><p>The bill dump is no surprise, as Friday was the deadline for the year for bills to be voted out of their primary committee. That is not a barrier for initiatives to be slipped into other, pre-existing bills or through trading between House and Senate, but it is the cutoff for following the standard route forward.</p><p>***</p><p>Bills on the Move</p><p>The House agreed in an 80-35 vote to move a bill forward that makes manufacturers responsible for the costs of free collection and disposal of hazardous wastes in household goods. It’s stuff that is highly dangerous to put in our landfill.</p><p>The argument that manufacturers instead of taxpayers will now pay for this was a farce. Obviously, the cost will show up in the products. But I do believe that if we buy something that must have leftovers safely retrieved because of high risk, we who buy it should have that included in the cost Thus, I voted for it.</p><p>Even more contentious was a bill expanding the current use program to include forested land that is not being managed or farmed. This program was created to protect us from losing farmland that was being appraised at the value if developed, instead of its “current use” as a farm. This was driving some farms out of business. Keep in mind that anything that is granted a reduction in property taxes means increases to everyone else. It passed 99-40 on a roll call vote; I opposed it.</p><p>Among bills in the week ahead:</p><p>District-mate Rep. Ken Goslant will report a bill giving greater access for adoptees to get their original birth certificates. </p><p>We’ll review authorization for “natural organic reduction” of human remains as an alternative to traditional burials and look at a ban on mercury lamps, grants for towns to change to heating systems that reduce carbon emissions, and licensing out-of-state telehealth that maintains the access that began with a waiver for COVID while also protecting consumers.</p><p>A bill updating requirements for the coming marijuana retail establishments is expected to be contentious. </p><p>The reapportionment bill is also on the list. It preserves our current Northfield-Berlin 2-seat district.</p><p>The mega-workforce development bill will go to Appropriations first but includes all the healthcare components my committee worked on; here, the controversy will become what we can afford and what items will be the priorities when some must be pared back.</p><p>Also going to Appropriations is the “Clean Heat Standard” bill that builds on the carbon reduction goals we created last session. It passed from its committee on a 6-4-1 vote, a sure sign of divided support and major debate. Appropriations could make significant changes, so it is too early to tell what will become the key issues in dispute.</p><p>A routine bill to discontinue boards and commissions that are no longer needed had a clause added on my initiative. I heard a concern from a constituent last fall about a requirement on the state web site that anyone applying to be appointed to a board, such as advisory boards to state agencies, must consent to their tax records being turned over. I suggested that should only be required if necessary for the specific board. Most people consider their tax records to be pretty private, and the current requirement could have a real chilling effect on citizens who want to apply.</p><p>All of the House bills will go to the Senate next, where they may be adopted, tweaked, radically changed, or left to die. Any changes then must come back for House review. That is a part of the checks-and-balances of having two separate bodies assess new legislation before it goes to the governor.</p><p>***</p><p>Governor Vetoes</p><p>The major “check-and-balance” is the power of the governor to veto a bill. The legislature can overturn a veto, but that requires a two-thirds vote rather than a simple majority. We are working through several of vetoes. </p><p>Last week, on a vote of 102-47, the House overrode the Governor on allowing Brattleboro’s decision to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote and run for office in local elections. I was on the losing side in supporting the Governor. We are in the midst of efforts to change laws to keep criminal offenders in Family Court up to age 24. There is another bill introduced that would forbid marriage under age 18. Both are based on the immaturity of judgement of young adults. There is a bizarre double standard here.</p><p>The newest gun control bill was also vetoed, and legislative leadership knew it didn’t have the votes for an override. They negotiated a compromise with the Governor to make it acceptable. The bill, unfortunately, addressees five different topics. What remains unacceptable to me is the permission for mental health counsellors to breach confidentiality to report a high-risk individual to the police. Well-intended, but likely with an unintended consequence. People in distress simply won’t share with a therapist if they fear being reported, and we will lose interventions that could actually prevent harm to self or others. So, I will vote no, but the die is pre-cast for passage based on the compromise.</p><p>A contractor registration bill is on hold on our calendar until April while legislative leaders and the governor seek compromise.</p><p>The veto of the rental housing registry bill is playing out under another tactic. The Senate moved $20 million for housing from the budget into the registry bill. Everyone wants that federal money to move forward. Will that result in a caving-in on the registry? That is yet to be seen.</p><p>***</p><p>My Committee Bills</p><p>House Health Care contributed four to the stack of bills on the calendar. One was just technical updates to some outdated language in statutes.</p><p>Another requires hospitals to adopt uniform programs for their free care versus bad debt programs. Under federal requirements, they must have these programs in place, but the state’s health care advocate came to us with a concern about how difficult it was when each hospital had different policies within our small state. The hospital association agreed it was a problem, and they worked with the advocate on language to create the same minimum standards for everyone. </p><p>This kind of “consensus bill” – where the parties work together to present a solution – is more frequent than folks might think, because they don’t attract news media attention since they are able to move through the legislative process without controversy or debate.</p><p>We also passed a bill requiring hearing aid coverage to be added to some health insurance policies. It is extremely narrow, only affecting about three percent of insurance products or about 20,000 Vermonters. The testimony about the importance of hearing aid coverage was compelling. Most testimony about specific problems is compelling. I was the sole “no” vote on our committee. Why? </p><p>We have an incredibly inequitable system for access to health care. The only ones who strong access are the poorest and the wealthiest folks, or those, regardless of income, who have the good fortune to work for an employer who can afford to offer insurance that is rich in benefits and has low-cost sharing. While it may make sense to ensure that very low-income Vermonters have access to dental, eye and hearing aid services, it doesn’t make sense to pick and choose which other insurance products are mandated to add benefits, particularly when so many people struggle to afford any insurance at all.</p><p>The reason we added the new hearing aid benefit for just one small group was purely because it is the only insurance group that we have full state control over. The others all have elements of federal control. As one example, there are some older Vermonters who are just over the (very low) income threshold for getting premium assistance for Medicare. They are paying as much as 20 percent of their income for the federal premium. They are not getting help with hearing aids.</p><p>We could increase premium assistance but have not chosen to. We cannot require the federal government to add hearing aid coverage, but we could create a state-run program to assist with hearing aids. We have not chosen to do so. It’s easy for us to tell an insurance company that they must contribute to hearing aids, because it doesn’t come out of the state budget. But someone does still have to pay for it, no matter how smaller that “extra” may be.</p><p>Who are these three percent? It is those businesses who buy insurance who have more than 100 employees (so they are not mandated to buy Health Exchange products) but who have not found a way, or are a bit too small, to escape state regulation by becoming self-insured. In a change in a 5-year period, 80,000 rather than 20,000 Vermonters were on these plans. Because of our choices to increase requirements, the self-insured plans went from half to two-thirds of all commercial plans and we have lost any ability to impose any controls on them. In other words, our goals backfired.</p><p>A newly imposed benefit for this small remaining group risks tipping the equity scale even further, which is why I opposed it.</p><p>Our fourth bill adds regulation to “PBMs” across all commercial insurance. What is a PBM? It’s a pharmacy benefits manager, a company that contracts with your insurance company to run your pharmacy coverage plan. The insurance companies can save a lot of money on your behalf (saving on your premium costs) by having national companies negotiate with drug manufacturers to get the best prices, because the PBMs represent a much bigger buying pool.</p><p>But how are they paid for their services? It is often through one or both of these mechanisms: They barter with drug manufacturers to be paid a rebate in exchange for putting that particular drug on the “preferred drug list” for your plan. They control which drugs you can get for a lower co-pay based on what they are getting paid by the manufacturer. Another mechanism is that they get reimbursed for the drugs by the insurer but pay the pharmacy less than what the insurer has paid them. This “price spread” is their profit.</p><p>Sometimes, your co-pay or co-insurance is actually higher than the cost of the drug, and that excess goes back as PBM profits. The pharmacies in some cases get paid less that what they have to pay to get the drugs for patients. It is an incredibly complex system of the flow of money and drug costs, and it is putting local pharmacies out of business in Vermont. In the past 10 years, we have gone from 42 to 16 independent (non-chain) pharmacies in the state. </p><p>Our bill only begins to scratch the surface. It would eliminate the “gag clauses” that PBMs use in their contracts with pharmacies that ban your pharmacist from telling you about less expensive options. I got a big smile of relief from Northfield Pharmacy when I told them about this part. It starts the process of greater oversight and asks our Department of Financial Regulation to report back next year on the next steps we should be taking to protect access and cost for Vermonters – and to save our local pharmacies.</p><p>***</p><p>Please contact me or Ken 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.</p><div><br /></div>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5504298432943219288.post-15358752918070737782022-02-26T11:50:00.001-08:002022-02-26T11:50:23.232-08:00February 26, 2022 Legislative Update<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We are nearly halfway through this year’s
legislative session, with bill deadlines coming at the close of the week we
return after the Town Meeting break. The current week is a good one for
reaching out to Rep. Ken Goslant or me to talk about pending issues, since we
aren’t tied up in day-long committee meetings and floor sessions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The weeks immediately after that deadline
will be the beginning of a much heavier load of floor debates on specific bills,
followed by work in committees on initiatives sent over by the Senate. The
state’s budget will also be coming out from the House and headed to the Senate
by the end of the month.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Health Care Committee<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">My committee has finished its input into
the budget and workforce bills and has three initiatives we are trying to
finish by the March 11 deadline. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We wrestled with a large, late-in-the-game
budget request from the Green Mountain Care Board – our state’s health
regulator and reform czar – for initiating several health reform projects. We’ve
spent five years on the major reconfiguration of financing that was supposed to
funnel the major payment resources into entities (“Accountable Care Organizations”)
that would pay health providers based on health improvements and care delivery,
rather than on the basis of each individual piece of service delivered. The key
element was the negotiation with the federal government to align its payments
from the Medicare system into this new payment system, joining with Medicaid
and commercial insurers, ergo, called the “All Payer” model. We ended up with
only one accountable care organization, by the name of OneCare. Those are the
two names the public may have heard referenced: the All Payer model, and
OneCare.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The $5 million request from the Green
Mountain Care Board is a bit of a “re-set” button being pushed, though no one has
quite said that. Not nearly enough insurance plans or providers have signed on
to the All Payer model yet to reach a critical mass that would create real
change. It is nowhere near its targets. And the 5-year agreement with the feds
is nearing its end. In addition, many of our hospitals are teetering on the
edge of sustainability, caught between rising cost pressures and the inability to
increase revenues enough to meet them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">So, how to recalibrate?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The Board is recommending two things: First,
a deep dive on the actual delivery of health care in each part of the state. It
would bring everyone to the table in each regional sector to talk about
priorities and how to improve outcomes. Perhaps some hospitals need to be
reconfigured to best meet local needs and maintain access. Perhaps there are
efficiencies in the infrastructures. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How
do we best allocate resources? But the work is intended to be from the ground
up, not from top-down directives. That is a $3 million process that will also involve
data gathering and analysis and technical assistance to hospitals to facilitate
transformation initiatives.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Second, a reframing of how we move away
from the current, predominant fee-for-service model into payment based on value
received. That would involve establishing fixed payment hospital budgets: they
receive overall payments to achieve population outcomes, rather than for each
hospital bed they fill. Designing that system and renegotiating with the feds is
the purpose of the additional $2 million investment, including the costs of deeper
analysis of the hospital markets and their costs and expenses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I drafted the language to put very clear parameters
of our expectations on how this process would move forward, including a report
back before any changes move forward, and we included this in our budget
recommendations to the Appropriations Committee.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Health Care Workforce<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We prioritized three areas as most in need
of immediate investments in our recommendations to the Commerce Committee for
stabilizing the healthcare workforce. Workforce shortages cut across almost
every job sector, but my committee’s task was to identify responses for health
care.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We have many more applicants to our
in-state nursing schools each year than we have slots for, and we are
desperately short of nurses. Enhancing nursing education capacity needs to be a
high priority. We recommended emergency state investments in several supports
for that system, each addressing a specific current barrier. We lack nursing
educators; a nurse takes a huge pay cut if they move from clinical practice to
teaching. We proposed grants to nursing schools for a bridge to enhance
salaries. There is a lack of clinical placements for students; practicing nurses
receive nothing extra if they agree to take students under their wing. We proposed
grants to hospitals to add stipends. Nursing schools need sophisticated
simulation laboratories for students to practice in and they lack the capital funds
to upgrade and expand them. We recommended a capital grant fund. (Think of it:
would you prefer a student to try their first several IV insertions on you, or
on a dummy?) Norwich will be one of the direct beneficiaries if these
investments are passed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">I think the most positive initiative we
are seeking to fund is a grant program for seed money to start “pipeline” projects
modeled on one I heard about from Central Vermont Medical Center a few years
ago. It offers staff already working in front line positions the support to
advance their education and careers in exchange for commitments to continue to
work there. A nursing assistant, for example, can get paid time off for
classroom work plus scholarship funds so that they can afford to go to school
while still working and earning a salary, and graduate as a licensed practical
nurse. It has been a huge success, but the health organizations need start-up
funds to create these programs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The second major priority area is in the community
mental health agency system, where year after year, the state budget falls
short of funding anything near the same cost of living or inflationary
increases that state employees or other government services receive. The
governor’s budget proposed a three percent increase this year, and we have
proposed making it 10 percent instead, to help with catch-up to market
salaries. We also proposed an expansion of scholarship and loan repayments for
furthering education.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The third priority area is to address
everything we can’t do in the first year of an emergency response, and that is
to lay the groundwork for a more cohesive, long-term response. Last year, we
asked for a strategic plan for this purpose. A cross-agency work group came out
with no less than 40 recommendations, most of them very common sense. But
someone has to actually follow-up to make them happen, to pull the players
together to reduce barriers and to develop healthcare career-building at
earlier points. We recommended staffing a time-limited position to implement
components of the plan.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Finally, one of the recommendations in the
plan was to establish a single point of information to gather data on the
healthcare workforce, which will enable future supply and demand modeling to
understand what needs to be targeted. We want that to be developed immediately.
This year brought to the forefront the way we have been playing whack-a-mole
over the past decade. One crisis pops up; we react. Another one; another
reaction. We have no bigger picture of where the most pressing developing needs
are – tied together with our changing demographics (read: we are getting older
and needing more health care.) We must create that core data if we are to ever be
able to act planfully instead of reactively.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Healthcare Bills<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">We’ll be looking to wrap up three bills during
the deadline week when we return.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The first is to address hearing aid
coverage in health insurance plans. We’ve been receiving urgent pleas to address
this issue over the past several years. It is a good illustration of how much
our hands are tied when it comes to regulation of insurance plans. We’ve taken
the first step of addressing coverage in plans that are offered on Vermont Health
Connect for individual or small group coverage. We expect that some plans,
beginning next plan year, will begin to include that option. Medicaid already
covers them; Medicare does not and we can’t do a thing about that since the
federal government controls it. (Some Medicare Advantage plans chip in towards
the cost.) Many large employer plans are also controlled exclusively under
federal law – but not all. So we will be looking into what steps we can take in
that arena.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">The second bill is a step forward in
addressing financial assistance plans offered by hospitals in the state.
Although the vast majority of Vermonters are insured, many have very high
deductibles and are financially devasted by a major hospital stay. Hospitals
all do have assistance plans, based on income, but they all differ. If you have
your heart attack in the wrong county, all the rules – including basic
eligibility – will be different. This bill seeks to bring them into more alignment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Finally, we hope to pass a bill that will
at least take the first steps in increasing the oversight of the shadowy
middlemen in the sales of pharmaceuticals. They operate within an incredibly
complex world of negotiating with drug manufacturers on behalf of insurance
company and making some of their money by paying less to a pharmacy than what
they pay for the drug. They have already been lobbying us about what an
important role they play in health care delivery; that may be the surest
indicator that we need to be watching them more closely.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">***<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .2in;"><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">Take advantage of our “down time” during
town meeting week by reaching out to me (<a href="mailto:adonahue@leg.state.vt.us">adonahue@leg.state.vt.us</a>) or Rep.
Goslant (<a href="mailto:kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us">kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us</a>)
to share your concerns, priorities and ideas. We want to work for you – it is
an honor representing you. <o:p></o:p></span></i></p>representativeannedonahuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17959511399444080481noreply@blogger.com0