by Representative Heidi Scheuermann (R-Stowe) As we enter our sixth week of this 2017 Legislative Session, the differences in priorities between Governor Phil Scott and the Democratic majority in the legislature seem to be getting clearer. As Governor Scott has demanded no new taxes and fees on Vermont families and businesses this year, legislative efforts that seem to be gaining traction include increasing the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour and instituting paid family and medical leave for workers. And, as the Governor proposed a level-funded Fiscal Year 2018 state budget, the legislature last week dealt a serious blow to his proposal, voting against the date change for school budget votes.
Specifically, in his budget proposal, the Governor called for the level-funding of K-12 school budgets this year, in order to pay for increased investments in higher education, early childhood education, economic development efforts, housing, and combatting our opiate epidemic, among other items. By level-funding school budgets, he argued, the money would be there, without raising taxes on Vermonters, to ensure we protect our most vulnerable, and make these much-needed increased investments.
Almost immediately, protests came from all directions. First, those who claim to support local control of education decried the ultimate loss of it with this proposal. And second, more reasonably in my view, school boards throughout the state cried fowl, as they are in the final stages of their budget development process.
While this is a significant change being proposed, and the timing of it is certainly a challenge, the discussion is a critically important one to have, as the now $1.6 billion we spend on K-12 education has suffocated any hope of investing in other critical items. So, I applaud the Governor for taking it on.
The bottom line is, though, we are at this point now because of our abject failure to address the broken education finance system that has brought us to this point - a system that encourages higher and higher spending with little accountability for such spending.
So, first with regard to local control: Let's be honest here. The Legislature, and Montpelier in general, stripped away the biggest chunk of local control in 1997. And, since that time, at least through my 11 years, the Legislature has done nothing but take more and more local control away from our communities, including the passage of Act 46, forcing the mergers of local districts.
I share the vision to ensure more local control in both the delivery of education and education policies, and have fought for it every step of the way.
Even just in the last few years, I fiercely opposed the forced merger bill that ended up becoming Act 46, I have supported independent schools and school choice, and have opposed in any way possible, the proposed rules governing independent schools and the creation of Alternative Structures under Act 46.
Where is the rest of Montpelier's Democratic legislative leadership on those core local control issues? Simply put, nowhere. In fact, in many instances, they are lining up right next to the State Board of Education and Agency of Education as the two try to wrest more control away from the local communities and families.
The local control argument coming from many in Montpelier is disingenuous, to say the least.
The real issue, however, in this particular instance, is when you have the revenue raising at the state level and the spending at the local level, there has to be some connection made. It's like my sister having my checkbook. That is the underlying problem with the system we have in place, and it lends itself to higher and higher spending with no accountability for that spending. And, those statewide spending increases in K-12 education have caused the property tax crisis we have, and we have to somehow address it.
To be clear, we are expected to spend, this year, $1.6 billion on K-12 education.That is up from $1.3 billion in 2010 and up from $1 billion in 2005.
That is a $600 million increase in K-12 spending during the same period our student population declined by approximately 16,000 pupils to approximately 88,000. We somehow need to reconnect our revenue raising with our revenue spending.
Meanwhile, through these same years, we have seen our Vermont State College system struggling to sustain itself and low and middle-income families unable to afford early childhood education. We are also in desperate need of significantly increased investments in our economic development efforts, housing, and in the prevention and treatment of our opiate epidemic.
But, we cannot make those investments until we can get K-12 spending under control. By not addressing K-12 education spending, i.e., the education funding system, we have allowed everything else to suffocate.
The bottom line is we have failed the families and businesses of Vermont for years by not fixing our broken education funding system. I now look forward to the proposal from the legislative leadership to increase the needed investments I outlined above without raising taxes and fees on Vermonters.
|
Minimum Wage Increase to $15.00 Per Hour? In 2014, THe Vermont Legislature passed (with my support) a law that increased the minimum wage over the course of four years. Specifically, it went from $8.73 per hour (already almost $1 above the federal minimum) to $9.60 in 2016, $10.00 per hour in 2017, and $10.50 per hour in 2018. In addition, this legislation ensured the minimum wage would be indexed to inflation beginning in 2019. The idea behind this proposal, and what became law, was to ensure the wages for working Vermonters kept up with inflation, without adding mandates on our employers that suppress growth and investment. Unfortunately, in the midst of this four year process, the minimum wage discussion is back in front of the Legislature as a high priority for legislative leaders. Specifically, there are two bills under consideration, both of which call for raising the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. The first, H. 64, would raise it over the course of three years. And the second, H. 93, would raise it over the course of five years. Given the seemingly high priority this is for legislative leadership, the House General Affairs Committee began last week in earnest taking testimony on these proposals. To be clear, I certainly understand the challenges our working Vermonters face in terms of earnings, and want to do all I can to ensure our economy grows so that more, and better paying jobs in the private sector are created. In my view, however, this is not the way to grow an economy. First, I am not as concerned about the actual minimum wage increase as I am about the upward pressure it would create on the higher wages. After all, if the minimum wage increases to $15.00 per hour, wouldn't those currently earning $25.00 per hour deserve a proportional increase? And, as that occurred, what would the impact be on actual employment? What would the impact be on price of goods and services? What would the impact be on further investment by employers in business here in Vermont? Second, I am concerned about the actual impact this increase would have on the employment of lower wage workers. In a July 2016 University of Washington Study on the impact of Seattle's Minimum Wage, some of the findings give me cause for concerns:
The House General Affairs Committee will be holding a Public Hearing on the minimum wage proposals this coming Thursday, February 9th at 7:00 p.m. in Room 11 of the State House. If you have any concerns about the proposals, please do all you can to make the Public Hearing. For more information, or to be put on the list of witnesses, please contact Ron Wild at 828-3559 or [email protected]. |
Mandated Paid Family Leave
At the same time the Vermont House is considering an increase in the minimum wage that will be borne by the small employers throughout the state, the Vermont House is also advancing mandated Paid Family Leave.
Specifically, H. 196 would establish a State Paid Family Leave program that would provide up to 12 weeks of paid, job-protected family leave. From what I understand, the $40-80 million program would be funded by a 1% payroll tax, split between the employer and employee.
Not surprisingly, I also have concerns about this proposal. As I travelled around Vermont this past summer and fall, what I heard from Vermont families and businesses was a plea to make things more affordable; to do what we can to encourage small business growth and development; and to hit the pause button on creating more expensive government programs.
I am hopeful the legislative majority heard the same pleas, and will come to understand that this is not the time to add more costs and more mandates on our already overburdened small businesses.