To the Editor:

On the evening of February 18, 2026, I received a robo-call from Rep. Becca Balint’s office.  She was holding a phone-in town hall event.  I took the time to listen and submitted a question.  My question/call was not chosen. No harm nor foul as I could care less about her answer anyway.  I was interested to hear what yarn would be spun and how well the scripted screenplay is holding up.  In short, I was not impressed or persuaded to listen to her ever again.   She spoke as a seasoned politician, hit all the DNC platform trigger points, and it’s all “this administration’s” fault.  She spoke of bi-partisanship and told listeners she ran for Congress because of January 6th. (what I refer to now as: “spook fest 21.”)

The subject matter was “affordability.”   The actual, factual problem is not affordability – it’s unsustainable, insurmountable debt (personal, domestic, and global) lack of liquidity (personal, domestic, and global) and employment opportunities drying up faster than cash on hand.   Yet, we hear “Wall Street is doing great!” Thanks Pam Bondi for clearing that up when talking about Epstein in front of the Judiciary Committee.  Taking a page from Grammy Yellen’s book of US Treasury fairtytales cleared up any question I had about the left/right paradigm or any hope our Justice Department is legitimate.  

The questions Rep. Balint received were largely from supporters and progressive types who don’t have a firm grasp on reality – just their personal delusions of granduer.  The questions spanned over the Safe Act, immigration necessary to meet labor shortages, (ICE bad, breaking the law is fine), healthcare and child care issues.  All of which were addressed with rhetorical mish-mash.  Rep. Balint reiterated her goal to be bi-partisan.  What does bi-partisan actually mean nowadays?  In Congress or in our Legislature?  I don’t see a whole lot of difference between either side. The results are the same for over 30 years now – policy failures, more debt yoked upon us, and more bank in the accounts of those who have more assets than taxpayers or constiuents combined – go figure.  

Rep. Balint mentioned she can’t sleep at night knowing the struggles Vermonters are facing.  She doesn’t appear sleep deprived in the video town hall she posted on Youtube, the day after, with the ACLU – “know your rights!” for immigrants and allies.   She also did not appear ill as was told to the phone audience a dozen or so hours prior.  An interesting contrast and miraculous turn around.  Going from commiserating with Vermonters struggling, need help and straight answers – to a bright eyed, energetic brigadier training foot soldiers of the color revolution.  What is causing US citizens to struggle, lose sleep, lose resources, and lose our rights – anyone?    

In the end, I took away the show must go on in this divided state of America and Vermont is worse for all the wear and tear.  I spent the time to listen to my “representative” to hear if there was ethical, sound principles or any resemblence therein.  I discerned there was none.

-Melissa Casey, Barre

The Art of Self Serving Bureaucratic Excellence: 

We are forking over over 25% of our very limited income in taxes and fees to the state of Vermont for services that are more aptly described as hindrances; so much for income sensitivity and compassion.  Let me elaborate on the most recent assault on our reasonable expectations of a functioning government that we have personally experienced: 

In this recent example of the pursuit of bureaucratic excellence by the state of Vermont,  my husband is trying to obtain his medical review release to drive.  After two visits to the local DMV in St. Johnsbury, which is open once per week, he has been informed that his paperwork is not in order.  Meanwhile licenses are handed out to illegal immigrants like buger sugar at an Epstein luau. 

The problem arises due to the state of Vermont online form system.  In our situation, Dartmouth-Hitchcock was unable to properly fill out the form because the  date field does not allow them to properly enter a full date.   Dartmouth has no control of the font size used, and upon filling out the form, the date field cuts off the last digit of the year.   So Dartmouth staff simply filled in the date by hand. First, we took a copy of the form hand filled-in Dartmouth,  to the DMV, and they rejected it, based on two boxes not filled in.  Then the next week we took the computer-filled  form, with a hand fixed date by Dartmouth staff,   back to the local St. Johnsbury DMV and they rejected it again even though we had documentation from Dartmouth that they were forced to hand write in the Date. ( the date issue was not specifically rejected in the first rejection).  When a staff medical assistant from Dartmouth called the Vermont DMV about this problem, they reported back to us that the VT DMV was not only uncooperative but rude to her. There is no justification for that kind of behavior from the state.  Meanwhile my husband’s cutoff date for renewing his license expires in a week, and he will have to go through the whole process and pay a new set of fees again, all  because a state of Vermont computerized form is not operable on another major institution’s computer system.

The local staff person who has been thwarting my husband’s efforts to just accomplish this simple task appears to be from another country and one can only speculate upon his citizenship, and it appears his understanding of the native English language is suboptimal, and we pay taxes for this person to be employed and receive benefits.  

While the rejection due to an automatic form data entry issue seems trivial, it has become a source of great frustration, causing hours of wasted time and energy for my husband any myself and traps tax paying legitimate citizens like ourselves into a bureaucratic limbo because a local staff member wields an unjustified power to reject a form because he deems is not filled out correctly, despite documentation from the institution describing the nature of the state of Vermont Form problem.   Meanwhile the expiration date to get this paperwork complete is looming in the near future.    

After calling the DMV in Montpelier, we have been advised that we will have to drive to Montpelier in order for them to be able to handle this issue.  Gee, a phone call to the local office cannot suffice?  This is an example of an unnecessary hindrance.  This will cost us much more time, fuel, and wear and tear on our aging vehicle because the state cannot provide reasonable services or for that matter reasonable accommodation to a disabled person.  So now we are not only subjected to these additional expenses, but also must navigate third world quality roads to satisfy the state’s need to feel powerful and to inconvenience citizens as much as possible.  Or perhaps this is another act of war upon the working disabled? ( the others include no deductions on necessary equipment for safety equipment for home and home business use, even though such deductions are allowed under federal statute).   The state is obviously unconcerned with the carbon footprint of this excessive driving in this instance. 

This is the kind of bureaucratic excellence that seems to exemplify what goes on the halls of Montpelier where decisions and bills clearly demonstrate a legislature dead set on ensuring that we continue to engage in policies  that results in the profligate use of taxpayer funding akin to Kronski and her merry thugs. Many examples abound ( such as ensuring ICE cannot do its job, policies which encourage drug use etc.,  making sure our schools engage in manipulating impressionable minds to question their biological sex, handing out licenses to undocumented migrants, aka vote harvesting ) ; policies not driven by what is good for citizens or even what the citizens have voted for, but rather in service to the agendas of NGOs and other unaccountable organizations which the state employs  to determine policy.   In my opinion most of these policies are designed to weaken the rights of legitimate citizens, weaken the nuclear traditional family, and ensure the destruction of a moral society which has the right to the pursuit of liberty and happiness. 

Montpelier needs to focus on getting the basics correct such as making sure that forms can easily be filled out and ensuring that legitimate citizens are served rather than subjected to gross negligence, incompetence, which serves to support itself rather than the citizens it is supposed to serve. 

In closing I can only state:

Where are we and why are we in this hell of a hand basket?

-Sue Watson, Waterford

To my fellow Vermonters:

There’s a bipartisan state-level effort in the Vermont House for the Defend the Guard Act, H.355.  This bill supports the Vermont National Guard, the U.S. Constitution and all our Vermont neighbors. It declares that our Guard can only be deployed to participation in an armed conflict when the U.S. Congress has used its constitutional power to declare war. This power resides solely with Congress, not the White House. 

Two recent events bring this to the forefront and underline the need for passage now of H.355. The White House sent Vermont’s Guard into the bombing raids on Venezuela in January after first staging them in Puerto Rico. And now they have been sent to the MidEast. This administration bombed Iran in June and continues to threaten that country with military attacks. None of this was done with Congressional approval.  

Introduced in a majority of states, it has passed, to date, in the Virginia House of Delegates, Idaho Senate, Arizona Senate and last month, it passed the New Hampshire House. In addition, in 2024 elections, over 80% of Texas GOP voters voted in favor of a Defend the Guard non-binding ballot measure which called for the same congressional care as H.355. 

Last but not least, when our Guard is illegally deployed elsewhere, they are not available here to aid all Vermonters with disaster response, wildfire support, and public health crises. Their actions were vital in the floods of the past 3 years as well as aiding in care during Covid. As the Vermont League of Cities and Towns puts it, “The National Guard can be activated to assist State operations before, during, and after any major disaster.” FEMA’s denial of 2025 disaster aid to Vermont highlights their importance.  

A Congressional declaration of war before Vermont’s National Guard is deployed to a foreign conflict would show where legislators stand. The least we owe our troops in harm’s way is accountability. Please contact your state representatives in support of the Defend the Guard Act and our state. 

-MaryDiane Baker, Brattleboro