Let’s all take a deep breath. Before we jump to the conclusion that $600-a-week federal unemployment checks on top of state benefits are going to destroy the work ethic and wipe out the labor force, let’s remember why we’re doing this.

The intended consequence of federal pandemic unemployment benefits through July is that workers will stay home. Until there is a vaccine, isolation is the best defense against the coronavirus. And if people are going to be confined to their homes, they need to have enough money to feed themselves and their families, make rent or mortgage payments, and pay for essential goods and services.

We’re looking at this the wrong way if we’re trying to balance “unemployment compensation” in one hand and “to not be working” in the other.

The $2.2 trillion federal stimulus bill will keep the wolf from the door for millions of people who can’t work and businesses forced to close because of the coronavirus pandemic—at least for a while. Congress rightly recognized its first priority is to see that people with no money coming in have enough to live on.

Now we must do the same for those who are still working.

Life in the time of the COVID-19 has upended everyone’s daily routines. It’s a wonder anyone has remembered the 2020 Census form that recently arrived in the mail. But as of last weekend, just over 16 percent of Vermonters had completed the survey. Nationally, the response rate has been 19.2 percent.

April 1, just a week away, is Census Day. That’s the reference date for answering the Census questions about the people in each household, their ages, race, relationships, and about home ownership. This is the basic head count that is done every 10 years, and it’s critical in determining the distribution for federal funds, representation in Congress, and representation in the Vermont Legislature. Federal highway construction, Medicaid, food assistance (known here as 3SquaresVT), Head Start, and school meals are just a few of the federal programs affected by the Census count.

We are all facing challenges that none of us have experienced in our lifetimes. As Public Assets follows the developments of the global pandemic and resulting economic downturn, we will be doing our best to add context and help you understand what’s happening in Vermont on tax, budget, and economic issues. Read more

Last Tuesday, communities across Vermont voted on school budgets (among other things). Historically, Vermonters have provided the financial resources that school boards have indicated our kids need to thrive in school—and preliminary results this year suggest voters passed over 90 percent of the school budgets up for approval on Town Meeting Day.

In addition to voting yea or nay on the annual school budget, five school districts—Barre Unified Union, Canaan Schools, Champlain Valley, Slate Valley Unified, and South Burlington—faced a second separate school budget decision: whether to fund school construction needs.

There was a celebratory feeling in the air in Montpelier on Tuesday after the Legislature overrode the governor’s veto of S.23, the bill to increase Vermont’s minimum wage. The governor rejected the bill despite the support of nearly three-quarters of Vermonters for the increase.

In the end, the Legislature decided that 40,000 of the lowest-paid Vermonters needed the raise.

While many policies that get discussed in the State House are complicated and can be controversial, this isn’t one of them—at least outside the building. This policy is popular and straightforward because Vermonters know it puts money in the pockets of those who need it most: working parents, older adults, and the disproportionate share of women in low-wage jobs.

U.S. News & World Report is out with its latest “Best States” rankings. Vermont was number five last year, behind Washington, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Utah. The report adds a new perspective to some of the debates we hear in Montpelier—about Vermont’s strengths, its weaknesses, and what matters.

U.S. News looks at a lot of factors to make its comparisons. They include equality indicators, like the distribution of income and the employment gap for people with disabilities. They look at the unemployment rate and the growth of the gross state product, but also the gap between men and women in workforce participation.

Overall, Vermont’s fifth-place showing was pretty good. And while we don’t want to ignore the areas where we’re falling short, the state is best served if we focus on, build on, and promote our strengths.

Yesterday, the governor vetoed the Legislature’s proposed minimum wage increase. The bill would raise the wage to $11.75 an hour in 2021 and again in 2022 to $12.55, from the current wage of $10.96. While the bill falls short of the most ambitious plans passed by the Legislature in recent years, it’s a big step forward for working Vermonters, and it should be enacted. Read more

There’s a lot in the budget the governor presented last month to the Legislature—and to the public. It’s a proposal to spend more than $6.3 billion for the fiscal year that starts July 1. The detailed budget book is over 1,350 pages, and that doesn’t count the supporting documents.

Buried in all of that information is one number that is hard to understand: a saving of $449,704 in the Reach Up program, which helps to pay for food, clothing, and housing for children in low-income families that can’t afford these basic necessities.

The saving comes from a projected drop in the Reach Up caseload. More than 6,000 families turned to the program for help during and immediately after the recession. But now participation is down to about 3,500, and the forecast is that the number of families needing help will “decrease modestly through 2020 and stagnate in 2021.”

That all seems to make sense—fewer people, less cost—until you dig into another document the governor included in his budget package.

Give Gov. Phil Scott credit for having the humility to reverse course and abandon a bad idea. A few days after announcing a plan to exempt young adults from the Vermont income tax, he scrapped the proposal. He changed his mind when he found out it would cost $14 million in lost revenue. Read more