By John McClaughry
The word “historic” is seriously overused these days, too often to describe events more curious than momentous. A case can be made, however, for the events taking place this week in the “veto session,” in which the supermajority Democratic legislature confronts a popular Republican governor. Consider this combination of facts.
Last year the Democratic legislature enthusiastically passed the crown jewel of its years-long campaign to price fossil fuels out of the market in the name of reducing “climate change.” Gov. Scott, correctly recognizing the Clean Heat Standard as regressive cost-inflating equivalent of a carbon tax on heating oil, natural gas, propane and kerosene, vetoed the measure.
John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute.
The Democratic leaders were shocked when three defecting Democrats, plus two independents and 46 Republicans, sustained the veto by one vote. They redoubled their efforts to make sure a handful of Democratic defectors could never again give that Republican governor a veto victory.
In the ensuing election, Governor Scott swept to a 70% victory –- but the number of Republicans elected to the House dropped to the lowest level in the state’s history (38), and they remained a 7-vote minority in the 30-member Senate.
As I wrote last November, “the Democrat-led House and Senate now have, and will enthusiastically use, the power to drive through any measure its leaders, spurred on by their clamoring interest groups, decide upon. The Governor may get a respectful hearing on practical questions of implementation, but he will have no power to stop this coming Johnstown Flood.”
In the last session they exhumed the vetoed Clean Heat Standard bill (renumbered S.5), fraudulently labelled it the “Affordable Heat Act,” drove it through both chambers in May, and overrode Gov. Scott’s veto. Now comes the final act of 2023, which is likely to merit the description “historic.”
Gov. Scott vetoed the FY24 budget bill (H.494, $8.5 billion) because, in his view, it “relies on new and regressive taxes and fees, combined with overall increases in base spending that is far beyond our ability to sustain.”
This sets up a truly historic situation. In 2009 Gov. Douglas vetoed the legislature’s budget for the first time in the state’s history. The Democratic legislature overrode his veto, and that budget went into effect, the governor’s concerns notwithstanding.
But if Democrats and Progressives concerned about the Democrat budget’s termination of support for motel accommodations for some 2,800 homeless people mostly in Greater Burlington, vote to sustain the veto, on July 1 the state will have no General Fund budget. Then what?
The Democrats could rush through a substitute budget including tens of millions of new dollars to assure “alternate stable settings” (not to be confused with a “solution”) for the homeless through June 2024. To move quickly they would need to suspend the legislature’s rules, which require possibly unattainable three-fourth votes.
Another scenario is for the Democrats to overturn the veto, then quickly enact a new bill adding $20 million or so to keep on housing the homeless until some presently unidentified resolution is conceived.
The legislature is not likely to consider the solution now under discussion in Rutland: distributing bus or train tickets to the homeless who promise not to return.
The budget isn’t the only contentious veto battle. The governor also vetoed a truly historic doubling of legislators’ pay and benefits (S.39). He also vetoed a universal child care bill (H.217) that will offer benefits for families of four with incomes up to $172,000 a year. This would be financed, at its beginning, at $124 million a year raised by another regressive measure, increasing the payroll tax.
The payroll tax is also the designated honey pot for the legislature’s paid family leave measure, sure to be acted on in 2024 (beginning price tag: $116 million per year).
Taken together, these issues are far greater than squabbling over small percentage spending differences, motor vehicle fee increases, and even doubled legislative benefits. Gov. Scott is gravely concerned about a state government well beyond our capacity to sustain without crushing new taxes, General Fund budget obligations rising every year, and paid family leave and more climate subsidies on the agenda for FY 2025.
How this conflict is resolved may well merit the adjective “historic.”
John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute.
Scott has been consistent over his three terms as Governor regarding not raising new taxes and has vetoed more legislation than any other Governor in Vermont history.
The problem is not with Scott, it is with how the Republican party is not preceived to be no longer the practical small government party but wrapped up in grievances and conspiracy theories which make it unpalatable for many.
Perhaps it is time to take a closer look at Phil Scott and learn from the way he appeals to so many voters both in the Republican primary and in the general election.
If this upcoming session does over ride all of Phil’s “vetos”….then it is game over. Phil is NOT the Gov because Repubs voted him in, he is Gov because DEMS & Libs voted him in, so they can create the ruse that “they care” and champion “balance”. It is a progressive’s lie, right out of Saul Alinsky playbook. Phil is powerless, a eunuch. HE KNOWS it, but he stays? Why? If Phil Scott really cared for VT & had any integrity….if they over ride all he veto’d….then Phil should do the right thing for VT’s future and IMMEDIATELY RESIGN. Then you get the pony tail progressive out of state trust funded socialist as GOV…and VT goes to fiscal hell much faster. This is the “shock treatment” VT needs so that people wake up and get very scared of how Progs will rule (destroy) VT. Shock & Awe with panic. It would make national news, and I’d guess the credit agencies (Wall St) would get scared and downgrade VT’s ratings. That is a bigger deal than you realize…it is the best warning sign fiscally that VT is run by progressive idiots to spend $8.5 billion on WOKE nonsense..for mere 640k people. If Phil quit, Progs & Dems will immediately realize that what they do is now ON THEIR WATCH and VT’s soon enough fiscal failure, could lead to a populous voter revolt to save VT and get sanity back. But if Phil stays as GOV, the Progs will just spend VT into a fiscal crisis…but they will blame Repubs, as VT supposedly has a Repub CEO as Gov.. If you really cared about VT, Phil…resign immediately when they over ride you and blindside the Legislature… enough is enough….the destruction of VT is, and will be, in Dem/Prog hands. If you resign, there is hope. if you stay, they will destroy VT.
At first, I was going to disagree with you on Phil Scott resigning as everything will already be on the legislature and not him but as I read it again, the credit downgrading made a lot of sense. If he’s not there, he can’t be blamed although the Dems/Progs would probably do so anyway. You know, how people still blame George Bush or Trump even though they’re out of office?
You are correct. Phil Scott, resign and save face. You’re better than any of the legislators we currently have. Make like the rest of us and pack to leave this Communist bastion to those who voted for it.
“Gov. Scott is gravely concerned about a state government well beyond our capacity to sustain without crushing new taxes” Only this year the smelling salts hit his nose? After being inside the Golden Dome of Doom and Gloom for so many years, he didn’t see it coming eh? What about these grand money schemes that were set into motion – what happened?
Example 1: October 2013: The Legislature created a special fund in 2011 to collect fees from investors, the idea being to help underwrite the state’s cost of administering the EB-5 program. Vermont’s EB-5 Regional Center exists to promote the projects it chooses to align with. Developers submit detailed business plans to the state’s regional center, which screens them and decides whether or not to sign an agreement allowing the developer to raise EB-5 funds.Brent Raymond, who heads up the state’s regional center, said the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency requires regional centers to actively market and promote economic development through the EB-5 projects. And promotion involves travel.Raymond and others from the state have done that, too. Generally, these events include conferences for immigration attorneys or foreign investment expos — or a trip designed to solicit investors for one particular developer.
Example 2: Phil Scott, the Governor of Vermont, welcomed Huang Ping and his delegation to visit the state capital, saying that Vermont pays great attention to developing relations with China, and it is willing to strengthen cooperation with the Consulate General. Scott was pleased to see substantive progress in the China-US economic and trade consultation, which he said is good news for Vermont. Vermont has a limited population but abundant resources, among which tourism is one of the pillar industries. He welcomes more Chinese people to visit, study, and work in Vermont, and he is expecting to explore more chances for cooperation with China.