Reach Up is failing to meet its own statutory goal “to improve the well-being of children by providing for their immediate basic needs, including food, housing, and clothing.” In a report issued last week, Public Assets found that Vermont is not coming close to meeting children’s basic needs.

Reach Up is the state’s primary cash assistance program and provides monthly grants to eligible families with children. A family of four with no other monthly income receives $726 in Reach Up benefits. This is the same amount a family of four received fifteen years ago—not the inflation-adjusted amount, but the exact same amount of money—while the cost of essentials has increased by 44 percent. It was not enough money in 2004 for a family to cover basic expenses, and it is certainly not enough in 2019. Fifteen years ago the benefit covered slightly less than half of a family’s estimated needs; today it covers 34 percent.

The fear that rich people will leave the state has been driving Vermont tax policy for years. The idea is that the state’s taxes should be competitive with other states’ so that taxpayers, especially those at the top, don’t leave. But this worry is unfounded, and the result is that low- and moderate-income Vermonters pay higher taxes than they should and the state’s revenues are inadequate to meet the state’s needs.

The latest proposal that relies on this fear involves Vermont’s estate tax. As part of his fiscal 2020 budget proposal, Governor Scott proposed raising the threshold for Vermont’s estate tax, a change that would cost Vermont as much as $10 million a year in state revenues.

As it stands now, the 16 percent tax kicks in for every dollar over $2.75 million in an estate—very few estates pay the tax (typically around 1 percent of estates per year). But Governor Scott would like the tax to apply to even fewer—only estates above $5.75 million.

When the Vermont Senate voted last week to increase the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2024, it was portrayed as an economic boon and a way to narrow the gap between low-income families and the well-to-do. What some senators may not have realized is that they also were passing a health care bill.

The New York Times Magazine ran a story last weekend about the various health benefits—both physical and mental—that come from raising the minimum wage. “Dollars on the Margins,” by Matthew Desmond, cites numerous studies that show people sleep better, eat healthier food, are less depressed, and smoke less when they get a raise and can make a decent wage.

“Studies have linked higher minimum wages to decreases in low birth-weight babies, lower rates of teen alcohol consumption and declines in teen births,” Desmond wrote. “A 2016 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that between roughly 2,800 and 5,500 premature deaths that occurred in New York City from 2008 to 2012 could have been prevented if the city’s minimum wage had been $15 an hour during that time, instead of a little over $7 an hour.”

Here we go again.

As his predecessor did six years ago, Gov. Phil Scott has proposed more money to help low-income families pay for high quality child care. It's a worthy investment, as it would have been in 2013. But repeating the mistake his predecessor made, Governor Scott wants to pay for his proposal by taking from Peter to pay Paul.

The governor's budget for fiscal 2020 calls for about $11–13 million in new taxes, including a $7 million increase Vermont could get by changing the way it taxes certain internet sales. But sales taxes, as a result of a major reshuffle the Legislature approved last year, are now dedicated exclusively to the Education Fund. So while raising the additional revenue makes sense, and would help to level the playing field for Vermont retailers, skimming money from the Education Fund shifts costs onto the property tax.

We were shocked and saddened to learn that Public Assets’ board chair, Larry Mandell, died on January 21.

It was shocking because he was active and by all appearances healthy. I had spoken with Larry a few days before he died and nothing about that conversation suggested that his symptoms would prove fatal. He was in the hospital for some tests. But it turns out that Larry had a rare and fast-acting disease called amyloidosis that caused his heart to stop suddenly.

We were saddened because Larry was a friend and a leader at Public Assets Institute. We miss him.

I had known Larry Mandell for decades, though just to say hello and exchange pleasantries. We had never had a conversation—until November 9, 2011.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for having me today.

My name is Stephanie Yu. I’m the deputy director of Public Assets Institute here in Montpelier. We’re a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public policy think tank that was established in 2003.  Read more

Repeating a theme from his Inaugural Address two weeks ago, in his Budget Address today Gov. Phil Scott outlined items in his fiscal 2020 budget intended to attract young families—and new taxpayers—to the Green Mountain State.

It was heartening to hear the governor acknowledge the importance of state services that help to improve Vermonters’ lives. Read more

Gov. Phil Scott has initially distanced himself from a plan to abolish local school boards and replace them with a single entity run from Montpelier. But the Greatly Simplified School District (GSSD), as it’s dubbed, is clearly the next logical step for an administration that is determined to drive down education spending and doesn’t trust local school boards to do the job.

“I don’t think we’re ready for anything like that at this point,” Scott told vtdigger reporter Lola Duffort, who first reported on the administration’s plan: “Designing our Future: A Blueprint for Transforming Vermont’s Education System.”

The idea of one state school district, with four administrative regions, stood in stark contrast to the image of Vermont the governor evoked in his Inaugural Address earlier this month. He described a state of “251 towns, cities, and villages,” where “the good … lives in each and every one of our communities.” But since taking office two years ago, the Scott administration has pushed to reduce the role of local school boards and local voters and give Montpelier greater control over education, especially over education spending.

In his Inaugural Address, Gov. Phil Scott described a state of 251 towns, cities, and villages, where  “the good” of Vermont “lives in each and every one of our communities.” But the administration also released this month a vision for the future of education in Vermont: one Greatly Simplified School District (GSSD) that would abolish local school boards and districts and run the education system out of Montpelier. Apparently, the people in those towns and villages are not good enough to run their schools.

The governor hit a lot of the right notes in his speech. He identified the challenges the state faces: an aging population, a smaller labor force, declining student enrollment, the imbalance of economic opportunities between Chittenden County and the rest of the state. And while he didn’t explain how to do it, he said one key to Vermont’s future was to build on its strengths.

Vermont is # 1 in people moving here! But wait, aren’t we losing people at an alarming rate?

Those were the dueling narratives just in the past week or so in the governor’s inaugural address and in the news from the 2018 National Mover’s Study by United Van Lines. Read more