# content
Degree: Out of touch and out of time

by Dustin Degree

Does anyone seriously believe a 7% property tax increase—in a state that already carries one of the highest property tax burdens in the country—amounts to “relief” for Vermonters?

Vermont’s House Majority Leader Lori Houghton (D-Essex) says it does.

Following a recent vote, she described the House majority’s tax hike as a “careful balance” between tax relief, education quality, and fiscal responsibility. It’s meant to sound reassuring—an acknowledgment of tradeoffs, a signal they’re doing the best they can.

Rep. Lori Houghton (D-Essex)

You can read the statement here: https://vermontdailychronicle.com/houghton-house-dems-defend-sustainable-7-property-tax-bill/

But it doesn’t reflect reality.

And that disconnect—between what’s said in Montpelier and what Vermonter’s experience in their daily lives—points to a deeper problem.

Step back and look at the past three decades—nearly one-third of a century—and a clear pattern emerges: sustained one-party dominance, rising costs driven by policy decisions, and economic pressure that has fallen hardest on working families and the communities

Montpelier has left behind.

That context matters. Because it exposes how shallow claims of “balance” really are.

A system that produces tax increases year after year is not delivering relief—no matter how it’s described. For many families, especially in rural counties and working communities, these increases are not manageable. Worse, they are painful and demoralizing. Combined with decades-old regulatory policies, they are hollowing out communities and pushing families down the economic ladder.

That’s not balance. That’s a trajectory.

And despite these rising costs, Vermonters are not seeing better outcomes—especially in education.

Even with sustained increases in spending, assessments show many Vermont students are not proficient in core subjects like math and English. At the same time, families are seeing fewer opportunities—fewer extracurriculars, fewer programs, and fewer of the experiences that once defined our schools.

For years, taxpayers have been asked to pay more while the system delivers less.

The issue isn’t simply funding. It’s that the system has not adapted to long-term changes—declining enrollment, shifting demographics, and the need for more flexible, efficient models. Those structural realities have gone largely unaddressed.

Continuing down this path—funding a system with rising costs and diminishing returns without meaningful reform—is not fiscal responsibility. It’s deferral. And over time, this deferral has become a steady decline.

Supporters of the current approach emphasize good intentions: supporting children, educators, and communities. Those goals are shared by everyone. But intentions don’t produce results—and they don’t justify decades of evidence showing this system is leaving too many Vermonters behind.

This is not about one leader or one vote.

It’s about recognizing that the current path is not working—and that continuing it year after year will only deepen the challenges we already face.

Vermont can do better.

We can build an education system that delivers both excellence and affordability. We can revitalize communities and create opportunities in parts of the state that have been under increasing economic strain.

But that will require something different than what we’ve seen for most of the past three decades.

Since 1992, Democrats have held a legislative majority in 15 of 17 election cycles. Since 2004, they have maintained near-continuous control of both chambers. The direction Vermont has taken is not an accident, it is the result of long-term governing choices.

Changing course requires a House majority with humility to confront these hard truths, embrace structural reform, and move beyond the policies that have driven Vermont’s affordability crisis.

Governor Scott has consistently called for that kind of positive change—focused on affordability, economic growth, and better outcomes for working families.  And he has put forward detailed plans to achieve it.

We’ll know soon whether the House majority is prepared to finally be an ally in this work.

If not, the conversation Vermonters will have won’t just be about policy.

It will be about whether a more balanced, more moderate governing majority is needed to change the state’s direction.

Dustin Degree is communications director for Governor Phil Scott, former deputy commissioner of labor, and was previously a member of the House of Representatives and State Senate representing Franklin County and Alburgh.

# contentMap.en
Degree: Out of touch and out of time

by Dustin Degree

Does anyone seriously believe a 7% property tax increase—in a state that already carries one of the highest property tax burdens in the country—amounts to “relief” for Vermonters?

Vermont’s House Majority Leader Lori Houghton (D-Essex) says it does.

Following a recent vote, she described the House majority’s tax hike as a “careful balance” between tax relief, education quality, and fiscal responsibility. It’s meant to sound reassuring—an acknowledgment of tradeoffs, a signal they’re doing the best they can.

Rep. Lori Houghton (D-Essex)

You can read the statement here: https://vermontdailychronicle.com/houghton-house-dems-defend-sustainable-7-property-tax-bill/

But it doesn’t reflect reality.

And that disconnect—between what’s said in Montpelier and what Vermonter’s experience in their daily lives—points to a deeper problem.

Step back and look at the past three decades—nearly one-third of a century—and a clear pattern emerges: sustained one-party dominance, rising costs driven by policy decisions, and economic pressure that has fallen hardest on working families and the communities

Montpelier has left behind.

That context matters. Because it exposes how shallow claims of “balance” really are.

A system that produces tax increases year after year is not delivering relief—no matter how it’s described. For many families, especially in rural counties and working communities, these increases are not manageable. Worse, they are painful and demoralizing. Combined with decades-old regulatory policies, they are hollowing out communities and pushing families down the economic ladder.

That’s not balance. That’s a trajectory.

And despite these rising costs, Vermonters are not seeing better outcomes—especially in education.

Even with sustained increases in spending, assessments show many Vermont students are not proficient in core subjects like math and English. At the same time, families are seeing fewer opportunities—fewer extracurriculars, fewer programs, and fewer of the experiences that once defined our schools.

For years, taxpayers have been asked to pay more while the system delivers less.

The issue isn’t simply funding. It’s that the system has not adapted to long-term changes—declining enrollment, shifting demographics, and the need for more flexible, efficient models. Those structural realities have gone largely unaddressed.

Continuing down this path—funding a system with rising costs and diminishing returns without meaningful reform—is not fiscal responsibility. It’s deferral. And over time, this deferral has become a steady decline.

Supporters of the current approach emphasize good intentions: supporting children, educators, and communities. Those goals are shared by everyone. But intentions don’t produce results—and they don’t justify decades of evidence showing this system is leaving too many Vermonters behind.

This is not about one leader or one vote.

It’s about recognizing that the current path is not working—and that continuing it year after year will only deepen the challenges we already face.

Vermont can do better.

We can build an education system that delivers both excellence and affordability. We can revitalize communities and create opportunities in parts of the state that have been under increasing economic strain.

But that will require something different than what we’ve seen for most of the past three decades.

Since 1992, Democrats have held a legislative majority in 15 of 17 election cycles. Since 2004, they have maintained near-continuous control of both chambers. The direction Vermont has taken is not an accident, it is the result of long-term governing choices.

Changing course requires a House majority with humility to confront these hard truths, embrace structural reform, and move beyond the policies that have driven Vermont’s affordability crisis.

Governor Scott has consistently called for that kind of positive change—focused on affordability, economic growth, and better outcomes for working families.  And he has put forward detailed plans to achieve it.

We’ll know soon whether the House majority is prepared to finally be an ally in this work.

If not, the conversation Vermonters will have won’t just be about policy.

It will be about whether a more balanced, more moderate governing majority is needed to change the state’s direction.

Dustin Degree is communications director for Governor Phil Scott, former deputy commissioner of labor, and was previously a member of the House of Representatives and State Senate representing Franklin County and Alburgh.