|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
| by Rep. Jim Harrison (R-Killington) Like the temperature changes outside that will soon bring us winter, Election Day results will bring a different dynamic to the State House in January. The current supermajority in the Vermont legislature has been dissolved. The Democrats will maintain majorities in the House and Senate but will no longer be able to override vetoes by the Governor without Republican help. Republicans picked up 18 or 19 seats in the House (depending on how you classify a former Republican member who became a Libertarian) and 6 in the Senate. Additionally, it is likely there will be a recount in the Springfield House district and a possible revote in a Bennington County district that apparently sent about 40 residents in Pownal the wrong ballot. The change in makeup will mean that compromise will be necessary for any major legislation to pass. The Democratic majority will continue to drive the legislative agenda but will need to find common ground with Republicans and Governor Scott to enact new bills. Former Democratic legislator and now Republican, John Rogers, defeated the incumbent Lt Governor, David Zuckerman, a Progressive/Democrat from Chittenden County. While this race will ultimately be decided by the legislature as neither candidate received 50% of the vote, it’s unlikely the legislature will vote to change the outcome. Controversial measures, such as the Clean Heat initiative, face an uncertain future. The law, which was enacted last year by overriding a gubernatorial veto, would have increased the cost of heating fuels to fund other energy measures. It is slated to return to the legislature in January for another approval, which is now less likely. The original sponsor of the measure, Senator Chris Bray, D-Addison, was one of the lawmakers to lose re-election last week. Education finance changes are also on the table, given the pushback from voters on increased property taxes. The legislation, which passed last session via a veto override, set up a two-year commission to come back and recommend changes. Many lawmakers do not believe we can wait two years, and that action needs to be taken sooner rather than later. Other laws enacted over vetoes could be revisited, but that would take the legislative majority to reconsider their past votes and might be too high a hurdle. While Governor Scott successfully campaigned hard for candidates to achieve more balance at the State House, he urged newly elected and re-elected lawmakers to put aside the “D” or “R” after your name and work for your communities, not your party. He further said, “…at the end of the day, we’re all on Team Vermont.” On the eve of Election Day, I met up with a member of Governor Scott’s team and he jokingly said to me that it would be embarrassing to lose my re-election bid to “blank” on the ballot (I was unopposed). I am pleased to report, that thanks to the voters of Chittenden, Killington, Mendon and Pittsfield last Tuesday, I received more votes than “blank” and was re-elected to another term. However, it is interesting and perhaps telling, that there were more votes for “blank” than for the current House Speaker and Senate leader on the respective ballots in Burlington. |
| What I heard from a constituent at my dinner table….. If they want “the rich” to pay more, have them buy their children’s breakfasts and lunches at school…And lower the $170,000 income threshold for childcare assistance. Have the state conclude that small schools cannot provide the variety in academics, social opportunities or activities that larger schools can. Broaden the students’ horizons! Consolidate for them. We paid big money for a health care/hospital study. Listen to the recommendations! Ask hospitals to designate their best services. Focus on providing specific services at particular locations. We cannot pay to provide all services at all hospitals. Some hospitals may need to become outpatient clinics. Rutland has shouldered more than its share of the burden of the homeless. Distribute responsibility across more areas of the state. Let hotels be refurbished and go back to accommodating tourists. In terms of growing housing, support contractors and landlords to renovate unused properties. |
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary
While you are at it, get rid of Universal FREE lunches in VT and the 20% payroll taxes. Where do you get off thinking Seniors, single ppl are responsible for other ppls kids? Isn’t the WELFARE (the fraud) big enough to handle all these things? We raised our kids w/o the rest of the state to support our child care needs and/or lunches. You might want to also check into the Medicaid/EBT fraud, go back 5 years and DEMAND copies of leases and then FINE the crap out of those who have committed fraud while living off the backs of the Seniors/taxpayers. But you won’t. VT will always be a welfare, catch-release state.
how come nobody brings up the payroll tax for childcare that the state vermont employees union does not have to pay! this is criminal. if we can have anyone sue the state for not reaching unrealistic goals, why cant we sue the state emplyoee union?
btw the largest employer in the state! how do they not have to pay? it was the state legislature that passed this
This is a good first start, that clean air boondoggle is just that, citizens of the state have had enough, taxes are out of control to fund ” nonsense ” and pet projects, people and are starting to push back, hopefully legislators will get the message, as they could be next on the chopping block, next time around so make them understand that, you’ve had enough………………..
Remember voice your concerns, they work for you not the special interest groups !!
No more free lunches for our house and senate members. They need to set an example.
Let’s see if the master minds we have under the ” Golden Doom ” , yes doom, got the message !!
How about a balanced budget, and lower taxes and yes remove that Clean air fiasco for starters ??
If the demoprogs dont realize that it was the “clean heat” thang that ousted Chris Bray, then they have plenty of soul searching left to do. Good riddance, Bray.
Thank you, Jim Harrison. Your role on House Appropriations puts you in a good seat to eye where we can make Vermont affordable again. Your blank opposition speaks well for you – the blanks beside Barmuth and Jill that received many votes speaks loudly, too. Keep VDC in your loops and stay in touch.
Republican Senators will put an end to Act 18, the Clean Heat Standard when Governor Scott vetoes it for the third time. That will not silence the Conservation Law Foundation’s appetite for suing the Agency for Natural Resources for not complying with the Global Warming Solutions Act.
Read on to understand the sequence of decisions that will deep-six Senator Bray’s fiascos.
Senator Steven Heffernan (R-Addison) has an alternative to Act 18 and the Public Utility Commission has ordered a consideration of an alternative to that unworkable law.
His “Healthy Homes” draft bill increases the O.E.O. Weatherization Assistance Program insulation installers’ salaries by $10 over several years providing a living wage for a tough job and recruiting more staff. And, it authorizes WAP to provide cost-free energy retrofits to low, median income households; the same as low income LIHEAP households benefit. Insulation and replacing leaking windows and doors will make those families more comfortable and safer. Energy burdened families will use less heating fuel and spend less time in the ER for treatment of asthmatic and respiratory problems; often subsidized by taxpayers.
Last year WAP insulated 1,200 homes and anticipates another 1,500 this year. The PUC will finally accept the most cost-effective approach that works with what Vermont already has while Senator Heffernan’s bill expands WAP’s capabilities given the chronic workforce shortage the State endures.
If CLF appears in court, the Judge would consider the workforce shortfall and agree the Senator’s proposal to expand WAP is all Vermont can accomplish, at this time.
Then the 13 Republican Senators can lead the effort to amend the GWSA to change its mandates to goals. Repeal of GWSA will likely not pass, whereas, striking the mandates and lawsuit provision will block any related CLF lawsuits.
Finally, without waging a global warming prevention campaign, the Legislators can address how to expense the repair of recent storm damage and design how to protect lives and property from future storms, drought and heat waves.
Much of our aging population live downstream from towering, forest-rich mountains (floods, landslides and fires). Land use planning and relocation of vulnerable flood plain properties is the safest way for Vermont to adapt to a warmer future with common sense planning and repair.
Are you aware that the average weatherization costs taxpayers $10k with an average savings in the vicinity of $350/year? That’s a nearly 30 year payback.
Maybe we should demand a stop to weather warfare and stop stealing private property with all of your stupid programs. Stop making me pay to insulate another persons home.
Richard, what are the “your stupid programs” to which you referred.
For the record: This quote by VT Digger commentor, Emma Cotton (11/7/24), articulates the use of a classic false dichotomy justifying the dystopian views of progressives and democrats. In her ‘Climate policies teeter after Vermont Democrats lose supermajorities’ opinion piece, she posits that;
“Democrats, including Bray, disagree with the notion that climate and environmental policies would cost Vermonters more money. Instead, they believe regulation is an important tool to make transitioning away from fossil fuels more affordable.”
In other words, Cotton, Bray, and the other climate alarmists, say that continuing fossil fuel use will be more expensive in the long run, because doing so will kill most of us, make life miserable for those who survive, and make the planet nearly uninhabitable. They believe that those who use fossil fuel have no right to impose this danger on everyone else… the not-so-subtle assumption (i.e., the ‘false dichotomy) being that, using fossil fuels is more of an existential threat to humanity than is the elimination of CO₂ emissions altogether.
Notice that the missing pieces of the debate, the reasoning behind eliminating CO₂ emissions, is never discussed, other than to claim that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas – which it isn’t. How, precisely, does achieving net-zero CO₂ emissions save anything? How does life exist without CO₂?
The answer to these questions is obvious. The reason our continued use of fossil fuel is dangerous is not because it changes the climate. It’s because using fossil fuel will be illegal in their world.
It’s not the CO₂ that will harm us. That privilege is reserved to the totalitarian progressives and democrats whose livelihoods rely on their controlling what the rest of us do and think, from the clothes we wear, the shelters we choose, the food we eat, where we work, and, most importantly, what we pay them for protecting us from our own stupidity.