Legislative Report 2/8/2018 - Vision Reflects Values

The President's State of the Union address is a tradition of our democracy that allows the head of the executive branch of the government to express his vision for America. It usually addresses a broad range of issues at a high level and is short on detail. Whether or not you agree with what is said, at least you get a pretty good idea of where the speaker is coming from. This got me thinking about my own communications, so I thought I'd try to deliver my own vision of what I try to accomplish as I serve as your Representative in Montpelier.

Let me start by saying that, as wonderful as Vermont is, we all want to help make our state a better place to live, work and play. We want Vermont to be affordable, not just for those at the top of the income bracket, but for everyone. Every family should have the opportunity to thrive, to be able to earn a living wage. While our minimum wage is above average, I believe that it should continue to rise gradually over time until it becomes a livable wage. Likewise, no employee should have to worry about losing their pay or even their job if they have to take time off to care for a sick child or elderly parent. That is why I voted for paid family leave last year, a bill that is awaiting action in the Senate. For those who are stuck in low wage jobs, we need to continue to increase access to training, career and technical education so that every Vermonter has a fair shot at success.

We have a great education system, but the cost of education continues to place a heavy burden on property taxes. With the additional demands placed on our schools from addiction, mental illness, and poverty, great public schools in all our communities are more important than ever in giving all children a bright future. During this session we are proposing a system of education funding that is simpler, still progressive, still subject to local control, and that will significantly reduce property tax burdens. Nor can we forget about the need to support pre-K and post high school educational opportunities.

Another core value is healthy families in healthy communities. The cost of health insurance and housing are the biggest challenges faced by many Vermonters. While Republicans in Washington are dismantling the Affordable Care Act and cutting funding for Medicare and Medicaid we need to make health insurance more affordable and ensure that Vermonters have access to treatment without barriers for drug addiction and mental health. A key to maintaining individual health is affordable housing, We need to support affordable housing development in downtowns and in village centers that also provides access to jobs, shopping and public transportation.

Finally, we need a healthy environment. We can't put off efforts to clean our lakes and streams. We have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels which has become a major contributor to climate change. Extreme weather events as well as adverse health effects. Lyme disease, algae blooms, heat waves, and extreme cold are the result. We can't afford to do nothing,

These are some of the values that frame my work in the legislature. I hope that my work will lead to a better Vermont for us and for our children and grandchildren.

I'll end by reminding you that I will be hosting an informational forum on the topic of Pricing Carbon Pollution at the Charlotte Senior Center on Monday. February 12, at 7:00 p.m. I hope to see you there.

As always, I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 1/24/2018 - A Practical Approach to Pricing Carbon Pollution

Most people recognize that climate change is happening, that it is caused by burning fossil fuels, and that it has serious environmental and health consequences. The challenge to our generation is how to counter the trend of increasing concentrations of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. The most obvious action is to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.

Our economy and lifestyle depends heavily on fossil fuels for electricity, heating and transportation. We successfully continue to transform our electric generation to renewable, clean sources, making Vermont's electric supply among the cleanest in the country while keeping our electric rates the second lowest in New England. However, despite our goal of reducing Vermont's GHG emissions by 25% compared to 1990 levels, our GHG levels have instead increased by 4%. We cannot be successful unless we address fossil fuel consumption in heating and transportation.

A proposal currently being considered called the ESSEX Plan, an Economy Strengthening Strategic Energy EXchange, was developed by a group of environmental advocates, business people and legislators over the last summer and has been introduced as Senate bill S.284. The goal of the plan is to move dependence on dirty fossil fuels to Vermont's clean electric energy by discouraging use of fossil fuels and encouraging a transition to electricity for heating and transportation. Here is how the plan works.

The EPA during the Obama administration calculated the “social cost of carbon pollution” to health and the economy to be $40/ton. Based on this number the plan starts at $5/ton of CO₂ (5 cents/gallon) and rises steadily to $40/ton (40 cents/gallon) over an 8 year period. The revenue generated goes back to Vermonters in the form of a rebate on electric bills. About $30M would be raised the first year and grows to $240M when the price tops out in eight years. This money would go into a special fund which would be drawn on for the rebates. Each month the amount collected would be allocated to each utility based on its electricity consumed for that month. That share would then be allocated based on whether the revenues came from the commercial, industrial or residential side of fossil fuel consumption. The rebates would be based on the amount of a customer's electricity usage. The revenues from the commercial and industrial customers would be rebated to them. The revenues from the residential customers would be divided based on income and geography.

Of the residential revenue 50% would be rebated to all residential customers, 25% would be rebated to customers in rural areas, and another 25% would be rebated to low income customers. Low income Vermonters in rural areas would get both bonus rebates. This formula is in recognition that Vermont is a rural state that requires longer commutes for rural residents and that low income residents pay a proportionally higher share of their income on energy costs. This strategy should encourage Vermonters to use less fossil fuel by transitioning to technologies like cold climate heat pumps, electric vehicles, mass transit, carpools and other strategies to reduce their carbon footprint.

So, how does this strengthen the state's economy? First of all, it makes Vermont more affordable. While electric rates themselves won't be affected, the carbon rebates, itemized on consumers' electric bills, will significantly decrease the net cost of electricity. Vermont's already low rates relative to our neighboring states will be even more attractive to businesses. Secondly, Vermont is not a source of fossil fuels, so 80 cents of every dollar spent on fossil fuels leaves Vermont. On the other hand, Vermont's electricity is increasingly sourced within the state or region, keeping millions of dollars of energy spending in Vermont. Third, transitioning from fossil fuels to electricity will add more well-paying green jobs to the 17,500 already created in Vermont. Finally, we are not alone. Vermont's New England neighbors and New York are poised to introduce their own carbon pricing legislation in the coming weeks making this a regional effort.

This method of carbon pricing is innovative and environmentally and economically beneficial. I look forward to a productive dialog about this plan and will host an informational forum on the topic at the Charlotte Senior Center on February 12 at 7:00 PM. I hope to see you there.

As always, I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

The Word in the House 4/29/2015 - Promoting Healthy Workplaces

A couple sits down in a restaurant. A waitress comes over to take their order. They notice that she is all stuffed up, and as she recites the specials she turns away to cough. Who can blame them if they are more than a bit uncomfortable when she delivers their food? A meeting at the office is punctuated by sneezing and nose-blowing by a co-worker around the table. A week later several people have called in sick or are spreading their own cold germs around the office. A mother wakes up her 9-year old one morning and discovers that he has a 101 deg-F temperature. If she calls in to work to stay home and care for her son, she'll lose $80 from her next paycheck. She's already behind in her bills and can't afford to lose that money. But she has to stay home for her child's sake. You get the picture.

There are about 60,000 working Vermonters who do not get paid time off if they or a member of their family are ill. They face a choice of losing critical wages or, in some cases, losing their job, or putting others at risk of getting sick. Last year a similar bill had been introduced but failed to gain enough support to make it out of committee. Over the summer legislators, businesses, worker representatives and advocates got together and reworked the proposal to make it more acceptable to employers while providing a modest but needed benefit to employees. As a result, this past week the Vermont House of Representatives passed the Healthy Workplaces bill, H.187, to address this situation. Passage of the bill did not come without a great deal of controversy and floor debate. When the final vote was taken, the bill passed 72 to 63.

So, what does the bill actually do? H.187 guarantees that working Vermonters will be able to accrue up to three paid sick days each year. For every 40 hours worked, employees earn one hour of earned sick time. Eligibility includes all permanent workers, whether full time or part time. These hours can be used for personal illness, the illness of a family member, or seeking protection from domestic and sexual violence. While the accrual of time begins in 2016, employees would have to wait until they have worked 1400 hours or one year - whichever comes first - before they could access this benefit. Working full time, the 1400 hours would be equivalent to eight months of work. Starting in 2018 the amount of annual paid time that employees can earn would increase to five days. Certain workers are exempt from this rule. Seasonal workers, such as gardeners, ski area temps, and students who work during the summer or vacations are not covered. Nor are persons with guest worker visas, nor proprietors, partner-owners, managers or executives of a business. If the sick days are not used, they can be carried over, but an employer does not have to pay an employee for time not taken.

Opponents have suggested that this legislation will result in drastic increases in payroll costs. However, calculations suggest a one-time 1% increase in payroll in 2016 for employers currently providing no paid time off to any employees, followed in 2018 by a one-time 0.5% increase. Employers who currently offer any type of paid leave will be minimally affected as long as this time off can be used for unscheduled illness or safety concerns for themselves or their family. For example, if an employer offers five days of vacation time, reclassifying it to five days of combined time off (CTO) will put them in compliance. A separate sick time policy is not required. The bill is a minimum standard and employers are free to offer additional paid time off as part of their existing benefit package. This bill will positively affect thousands of working Vermonters, and businesses will gain by the improved loyalty and health of their employees.

I continue to welcome your feedback on this and other issues. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

A Voter's Question - Taxes, Business & Job Creation

Q: With regards to promoting business and creating jobs in VT by retaining or attracting business to the state: Given that most small business owners (S-corps, LLC and Partnerships) pay income taxes at the individual rates, that Vermont income taxes are coupled to the federal tax rates, and regardless of whether the current income tax rates will sunset and revert to higher taxes;

1. What is your position on the current VT income tax structure?
2. Would you support a change in the Vermont income tax to support and promote business growth in Vermont?

 A: I can't really speak to how corporations are taxed in Vermont. My expertise covers only personal income taxes, which does include some small businesses that fall under self-employment, e.g. contractors, daycare providers, etc. Currently Vermont's personal income tax is not pegged to the federal tax rate. It only uses the federal taxable income as the starting point for determining the Vermont taxable income. After state-specific additions and subtractions are applied, the VT taxable income is taxed according to a graduated rate. I don't see any need to change this system. Since I don't know a lot about how the corporate tax structure differs, I am open to information and suggestions.

 

However, there are tax-related things that can be done to help businesses grow and create jobs in Vermont.

• I would favor tax credits for increasing the number of employees from one year to the next.
• I would favor creation of low-interest loans funded through bonding for startup businesses.
• I would also favor a temporary reduction of the statewide property tax on new businesses to help reduce startup costs.

 

Beyond tax policy, there are other steps we can take to improve conditions for economic growth.

• I believe that some type of public option universal health insurance program, possibly a single-payer system, would help reduce the costs of health insurance to both businesses and individuals. I'm looking forward to the proposals of the Health Care Commission created by S.88 this year.
• I believe that access to high-speed broadband throughout Vermont is essential if we want to grow 21st century businesses.
• I believe that we need to keep our education standards high so that we have a workforce with the skills businesses need.

Taxes and Expenditures

To many the word "government" has become a bad word ever since President Ronald Reagan defined government as "the problem, not the solution."  In fact government is the superstructure of an orderly society.  Government is especially necessary in a complex society with competing interests and requirements.  We in Vermont are blessed with a state government that has a close relationship with us, the governed.  Few states can boast of the accessibility we Vermonters have to our elected officials. 

The role of government is to do collectively what we cannot do individually.  In order to operate, government needs revenues; and the only way it can get revenues is by assessing taxes.  So, the job of the decision-makers, i.e. the legislature and the governor, is to balance the operational needs against the ability to raise revenue.  In these challenging economic times there is probably no one that has a definitive solution to the problem of balancing state revenues with expenditures. But whatever steps are taken to resolve this problem, it will be necessary to be consistent with the idea that since government exists to serve the governed, it is in times of crisis that government must do the most to help those most affected by the crisis.  Unfortunately, those most affected by an economic crisis are usually those with the least amount of influence. It has always been the goal of the Democratic Party philosophy to represent this segment of the community.

When budget decisions are made, we must take into account the effects those decisions will have on our children and our elderly, on those who lost jobs in this economy, on the quality of our environment, on our farmers and our entrepreneurs, and on the future economic prospects of our youth. We cannot continue to cut services when more services are needed; nor can we ignore the burden of taxation on those who are barely keeping their heads above water. While I don't have any magic bullet solutions to these problems, I will work hard with other legislators to find them.

The closing of the Champlain Bridge between Addison, VT, and Crown Point, NY, points out the danger of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.  Studies show that 50% of Vermont's bridges are in need of repair.  Yet for decades there has not been sufficient support for raising gasoline taxes to help pay for transportation infrastucture improvements.  It is not until a bridge is declared too dangerous to drive across that we finally sit up and take notice and spend the money to fix it.  The bridge in Richmond was another example of that approach.

Another example is the way cuts were made to the state employee pool.  Instead of assessing the impact the loss of a given job would have, as the legislature requested, the Douglas administration made cuts across the board.  Case workers in the health department were reduced leaving many communities without assistance for families with newborns and children at risk of not being sufficiently prepared to enter school.  Many of our rural families depend on counseling to give their children a good start in school.  This is also being penny-wise and pound-foolish because children who start out behind will often stay behind and have a greater potential to get in trouble during their teen years.

The bottom line is that sufficient revenue must be generated to meet the requirements of effective government.  The only way to achieve greater revenues is to have a healthy economy.  Prosperity increases the ability of each of us to contribute our share to the tax pool.  Taxation should not create an undue burden on any one group compared to another, so we need to distribute the burden using a variety of sources, including income taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, and specialty taxes like those on alcohol, tobacco and gasoline.  Morever, we must create the jobs that will create the ability for people to pay those taxes.  And that is another issue for discussion.

The Economy

Growing Vermont's Economic Base

The economic downturn of 2009 has not left Vermont unscathed, although our situation is certainly not as dire those of other parts of our country. Vermont has been losing high-paying jobs even before the financial crisis of 2008-2009.

Job creation in Vermont is a difficult nut to crack, but it is a key element in keeping Vermont's economic and social fabric healthy. We have seen numerous and innovative entrepreneurial enterprises spring up during the last decade in Vermont; but we have also seen huge reductions of personnel by major employers as well as the closure of smaller manufacturing enterprises. Reductions in both residential and commercial building activity have also had an impact on our workforce. The same is true for employees of the state due to decreased tax revenues and for teachers due to declining student populations. Efforts to disincline Vermont youth from leaving the state are hampered by the limited job opportunites that exist here.

That's the problem. But what's the solution? The best thing that Vermont has going for it is that it is a great place to live. Many residents of Vermont telecommute to jobs in Boston, New York and elsewhere simply because they want to live in Vermont. We can improve the opportunities for working remotely in Vermont by improving our broadband infrastructure. High-speed internet access is a requirement for this type of potential. It will also improve the ability of Vermont-based companies to do business online.

Another prerequisite for a healthy economy is the availability of sustainable and affordable energy. With Vemont Yankee's future in question and our contract with Hydro Quebec coming up for renewal soon, we have to have a plan for our energy future. See my position on energy here. There is a great potential for job creation in Vermont with the growth of green energy. State policy should continue to support innovative companies like NRG Systems, All Earth Renewables, Gro-Solar, and the wind and solar system installation sector.

Vermont should also support smaller startup businesses via grants and tax incentives to encourage business growth while working with large employers like IBM to bring more jobs into Vermont instead of exporting them out of state and out of country.

Finally, we must continue to guarantee the continued excellence of our educational system to ensure that Vermont will have a well-qualified workforce that will attract employers to our state.