TOM (briefly) ON THE ISSUES
• REDUCED TAXES and COST OF LIVING for working class Vermonters!
• Simplified regulations to let our state ECONOMY grow responsibly
• Expanded HOUSING options through policy not spending
• EFFECTIVE RURAL REPRESENTATION and landowner rights
• Expanded AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE through policy not spending
• REALISTIC SUPPORT for public safety and law enforcement
• AFFORDABILITY AND QUALITY in Education And we're back where we started...
• REDUCED TAXES and COST OF LIVING for working class Vermonters!
65% of Vermont adults 35 years old and under expect to leave the state in the next 5 years. This needs to be reversed or our income tax base will shrink catastrophically, leaving fewer taxpayers to face steep cost increases.
Affordability is not an option, and everyone wants to campaign on this promise. Listen carefully: others are addressing this by “raising revenues” to assist some Vermonters with certain costs. This cyclical arrangement will not deliver long term benefits without further increasing the cost of living here. It is simpler, more direct and longer lasting to “take less to begin with”. We are not a wealthy state but are increasingly compelled to spend as if we are. It is time to follow Thoreau’s thoughts and “simplify, simplify, simplify” on a state level so we are not forced to do any more of it at home because of rising taxes.
Affordability is a matter of TAKE LESS not FUND MORE. In Vermont, we balance our budget. We don’t do deficit spending and should not. We have only two ways to make our tax burden sustainable: we get more efficient with a smaller budget, or we get out of the way of economic growth and widen the tax base. I think we need both. Quickly. Some costs the State can’t control – we need to be much more responsible for the ones we do.
• Simplified regulations to let our state ECONOMY grow responsibly
We need to not treat our small local businesses the same as 1%-er corporations or that is all we will have left. Regulations ranging from land use to labor must be simplified and streamlined, eliminating redundancies and the amount of time compliance paperwork detracts from sustaining a business and by extension the families that depend on it. The opportunity to expand responsibly should encouraged, not inhibited. Grants and assistance for specific businesses is OK, but we need to lighten up on all locally owned businesses, and make Vermont a place job-makers want to be in and can thrive in. This is going to take some work and rebranding.
Expanding the economy is essential to raise revenues AND reduce the tax burden. 10 businesses can raise more revenue while each paying less in taxes than 8 can. It’s just math – we learned it in school.
• Expanded HOUSING options through policy not spending
When the state builds housing it often comes with an egregiously high price tag. The state clearing the way for the private sector to do so is far and away more cost effective. In this housing crisis the second option is the responsible choice as often as the choice can be made. Here are a few highly effective examples:
The Vermont Land Bank (is currently being set up): A State agency with ability to acquire property that is tax delinquent, abandoned, or so encumbered with red tape that it is unsellable. The Land Bank has authority to clean up deeds and titles and sell these properties at minimal cost to local developers who agree to rehabilitate these properties for long term residential use. This could resolve as much as a third of our housing shortage.
Carefully Rebalancing Landlord-Tenant relations to make it less risky for owners of one or two housing units to make rentals available which are currently empty or in short-term rentals. Again, this represents up to a third of our housing shortage.
Bulk purchasing of modular housing, with bulk savings passed along to small local contractors and then to purchasers. This speeds up production of modest size homes, lowers the price point, and costs are less impacted by expensive compliance requirements of a projects directly funded by the government. Plus, it makes reasonably priced housing available to small developers and rural communities.
The VHIP program makes 5 and 10 year forgivable loans available up to $40k matched by an owner or developer to rehab or create a rental unit. Result: housing units on-line for $40,000 in government assistance instead of $600,000 for a government-built unit. Does this need explaining?
Expanded funding for the VSHA rental-arrears assistance program: existing good tenants, with landlord approval, can receive limited funds to prevent eviction for non-payment of rent or utilities. No one wants to lose a good tenant but stuff happens. It is far more cost effective to help someone stay housed than it is to pay for a hotel/motel program. It is far better for kids involved, safer, less disruptive of supportive community connections, and resolves temporary challenges without creating larger ones.
In addition to the cost of securing housing and the cost of paying taxes on it, we have an emerging challenge in the rising cost of homeowners’ insurance, and the lack of coverage options. If you have had a less than encouraging experience with your homeowners policy, which is impacting your ability to stay in your home I want to hear from you.
• EFFECTIVE RURAL REPRESENTATION and landowner rights
60% of our state is rural, but our voice is often not considered in a way that reflects this. There are two competing views of the “Vermont way of life” that needs preserving. The first is the pragmatic, experienced and fiercely independent perspective of those living in rural areas and those making a living from rural lands. The second is an aesthetic appreciation of an idealized, bucolic impression of quaint villages and beautiful scenery and a determination to prevent any of that from changing.
This is a bipartisan challenge being denied a bipartisan solution. Vermont Republicans are consistently committed to the autonomy and viability of rural communities (call it “Rural VT way of life A”), rather than a high-level effort to force them into compliance with someone else’s agenda. Democrats are split in their opinion, with those from rural communities deeply concerned for their constituents but heavily pressured to vote the “caucus position”. In Vermont that caucus is dominated by larger and more affluent towns which prioritize “Rural VT way of life B.” This is documented, voting patterns analyzed, and public record. It is also offensive to the notion of Democracy.
The contentions surrounding Act 181 such as the “road rule” and expanded Act 250 jurisdiction were justified and stern. Rural voters beware: this is only the tip of the iceberg. If a democrat super-majority returns to Montpelier, it will be back and move forward.
I am more concerned now than when I first took office: the future of rural Vermont is being determined by policy votes, funding, legislative leadership and intra-party issues which are being leveraged by forces which do not live “Rural VT way of life A”. I grow more uneasy every day at the sense that my community is some sort of museum exhibit owned by larger communities elsewhere. Vote wisely – this is less about the candidate than the party. It is time to take a hard look at whether rural towns are being heard and served in equal measure with others.
• Expanded AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE through policy not spending
We have the highest health care costs in the country. By extension, we most likely have among the highest on the planet. It might be OK if we were among the wealthiest in the country. Meanwhile, back in VT:
We desperately need changes in our regulatory framework that encourage more insurers to offer more plans at competitive rates because one size does not fit all. This is already done and is already working in 48 other states. We can do this without spending more taxpayer dollars. Hello?!
We need to resolve the actions of UVM health network which drive up all of our health insurance costs.
We are working on once again allowing “association” health insurance groups (like once available through local chambers of commerce)
We are again considering age-based pricing provided no age groups premiums increase as a means to make enrollment affordable for more people. Higher enrolment numbers result in lower premiums overall.
“Raising revenue” to pay for primary care doesn’t necessarily mean that health care will cost less. It might mean less visits to emergency rooms and hospitals which are in fact more expensive. I’m interested, but quite cautious on this one.
We rely heavily on “traveling nurses” and healthcare professionals which cost much more than full-time permanent staffing. While we have eliminated the “non-compete” clauses in their contracts that prevent them from staying, they still need to find a place to live in an expensive state... and we’re back to housing and affordability. Again.
Rural healthcare is a question of public safety on par with law enforcement and fire & rescue services. Small hospitals can offer and support more services if the population is there to utilize it, which leads again to growing rural communities, making Vermont affordable to young families, and to growing our overall economy so that these services can be sustained without raising the per capita tax burden.
• REALISTIC SUPPORT for public safety and law enforcement
I applaud our judiciary system for wishing to be humane, to give a second chance, and to offer compassionate treatment for those circumstances which drive criminal activity. HOWEVER I believe these principles need to be practiced proactively, before a crime is committed OR in a secure setting that eliminates any further risk to the public at large. I feel strongly that bail reform, forensic facilities, and stronger public support for law enforcement is overdue.
I support the development of Public Safety models such as Chester’s for the potential it holds in rural communities. While regional models offer some cost savings, they do not provide response time and coverage as well. This is as critical an issue for rural towns as is the sustainability of rural hospitals. Affordability and staffing to sustain local departments is again dependent on growing our economy and working age population, and mid-income housing availability. Do you see a pattern here?
• AFFORDABILITY AND QUALITY in Education
These are two distinct issues, with distinct challenges to be resolved.
First, I am pro-education. Rigorous education. Every learning experience approached with effort results in an increased ability to reason, think, and to learn more. Music, art, languages, mathematics, grammar, history: these all lend to the exercise and growth of intellectual abilities in unique ways all of which can strengthen the student’s ability to perform in other subject areas. All of these are valuable even when the specific subject matter is not central to a students’ future. Logical thought is as important to the mechanic as to the researcher. Creativity is as important to an administrator as to a sculptor. I have used every class I have ever taken from grade school through graduate school... because I chose to. Teach strong – learn strong – live strong.
My "quality" concern is that teachers are being asked to spend more and more time on tasks other than teaching, often do not have the support they need to maintain an orderly classroom, and are asked to work in mixed-ability settings in which the delivery of curriculum can’t be optimized for anyone in the room. There are opportunities for mixed-ability community building, and they are extremely valuable, but academics need to be delivered in the most effective manner possible. This is not expendable. Vermont’s academic performance will not increase with funding, it will increase when we let the teachers teach.
Our cost crisis is a perfect storm of rising costs for labor, insurance and materials, high expectations for services other than academics, high maintenance needs for aging buildings. Meanwhile, our (shrinking, not so-affluent) population is tapped out for further taxes. Our total education budget far exceeds the amount generated by high property tax (which raises only 60% of education costs). Meanwhile we are severely limited by the fact that so many additional funds are unavailable for roads and bridges, rural health care, and to ease the income tax burden ahead of our upcoming surge in well-deserved retirement.
While I support local decision making regarding the best options for education, I must caution that not all local schools statewide have proven themselves responsible with cost control. I am hoping this will work, but I have cause for concern. Not least of which is the concern that it will all take too long.
I am in favor of consolidation where it clearly benefits students with opportunities, has the enthusiastic support of communities involved (looking for creative win-win solutions here) and impacts the overall cost involved. I am in favor of maintaining rural schools where creative cost-saving principals can be sufficiently applied and when that rural community can provide an education rich and wonderful in its own right. Life may be “cheaper by the dozen” but bigger is not always better. I know numbers of families who moved to Vermont because they did not want their children in schools with thousands of others.
And there is the conflict: accessibility to education for rural communities vs. the fact that we cannot afford the system we have now. I assure you if students end up travelling distances that prevent them from participating in sports, drama or other after school activities it won’t be urban students who lose out. The schools will be in the larger towns.
And we are back where we started:
65% of Vermont adults 35 years old and under expect to leave the state in the next 5 years. This needs to be reversed or our income tax base will shrink catastrophically, leaving fewer taxpayers to face steep cost increases. It will leave fewer families, with fewer students, and our new consolidated schools will be as empty and unaffordable as what we have now. We can’t tax more. We can only close just so many schools. We are not inclined to empty the rural countryside and go live in the bigger communities (really, urban dwellers, you don’t want this).
It would seem we need to make Vermont affordable enough for families to stay. To come back. To move here and thrive. Perhaps we need to let the economy grow; widen the tax base. Some think the government needs more income and needs to just take it from somewhere – taxpayers, consumers, ratepayers, magic money trees? I see a whole STATE that needs more income, and a government that needs to help that happen.
Reach out today! Ask Questions, Volunteer, Support the Campaign, Request a Yard Sign
Contributions:
Checks should be made to the Charlton Campaign Committee and sent to the address on the left.
Remember that donations to a State Rep campaign are limited to $1,290 from any single source in any given election cycle.