While health care and closing the $176 million budget gap dominated the news this session, many other activities were in action in the State House. A few of these are identified here.

Growing Our Economy
We are entering a hopeful time. Our state and national economies are showing signs of a sustainable recovery. Economic growth and expansion are real possibilities for the first time in years. And, we are already seeing results in increased tax revenues and forecasts. It is still a delicate time, so we must be careful to encourage and support continued growth.

The House worked this year with the new administration, our industries and advocates to lay plans to support our economic future. Working on a broad range of initiatives, we were able to form a strong tripartisan consensus on sustainable ways to help our economy grow.

We want to grow more food and more cell towers. We want to grow more business capital and grow more jobs and job skills. We want to grow new opportunities for our veterans and the unemployed. And, along the way, we want to grow consumer protection – for both individuals and businesses.

The keystone of our work this year was returning agriculture to its rightful place as an economic development priority of our state. Significant provisions of the jobs bill will grow the farm-to-plate movement, community-supported agriculture, and value-added enterprises that transform farm products into consumer products.

We also recognized that our future economy will…

“I hate the games,” one legislator colleague said to me. “I didn’t come here to play games. I came to help direct policy and appropriate money through principled actions.” We both agreed that we did not want to develop legislation based on politics, but on informed decision making based on principle and deeply held noble values.

We had a lengthy discussion that night about principled behavior vs. political theatrics and back room negotiating. Little did I know that the next morning, one of my bills was to go through some significant gamesmanship by a senate member who would attempt to finagle the bill into extinction through procedural maneuvers, a member of my own party, no less. My side was able to prevail by anticipating his moves and deploying procedural rules in response. Nothing here was illegal or unethical; just using the rules for one’s own agenda.

Both of us had good intentions, I assume, just different. He was doing an end run to help a constituent who wanted to own an unknown number of white tail deer and moose held in a captive hunt facility. I was working to put all of our wildlife in the public trust, insuring that our wildlife could not be reduced to private ownership. So who was right? What is the balance between doing what local constituents ask of you when it may stand in conflict with values held by Vermonters outside of your community? At times, we are servants of two masters:…

Middle school teachers of literature often say that the first act of a play ends with a question mark, the second with an explanation point and the third with a period. Following this analogy, I would say we have reached the end of the second act with a resounding exclamation point coming from the chambers of the Senate.

The most interesting place to be right now is the Senate with the budget and the tax bill passing last week and the unified health care bill slated for this week. Parodying the voice of Hamlet: to tax dentists, or not to tax dentists; to increase taxes on the wealthiest Vermonters, or not to increase this tax; to increase the tax on cigarettes, (although “not to tax” was never considered) – by 27 cents as passed the House, or $1 as passed the Senate Finance Committee? Following seven amendments and heated debate, the tax bill passed, raising about $24.5 million in new taxes, which included a 53 cent tax hike on cigarettes and the dentists were, once again, spared.

In contrast, H.441, the appropriations bill, often referred to as “the big bill,” passed easily with only one dissenting vote, resolving the $176 million budget gap for 2012 with the largest cuts to human services.

These bills will return to the House this week where changes between the House and Senate-passed versions will be reconciled in the House Appropriations Committee for the budget bill and House Ways and Means for…

I have placed some links which you can find on the right side of this site under “Kate’s Links.” You will find the latest version of the bill which passed the Senate Health and Welfare Committee on a unanimous vote after some additional revisions. Anything that said “single payer” has been stripped from the bill and some of the charges and responsibilities of the board have been reduced. There is also a link to other documents including frequently asked questions.

Feel free to email questions to me: klwebb22[at}mac.com and if appropriate, I will post answers on this website as they come in. Send to my email rather than replying on this site. Messages left on this site get lost in the hundreds of spam that come in.

The standing-room-only presence at the evening health care forum last week is a testament to the community’s interest and concern about pending health care legislation.  After the meeting, several people came up to me with feedback.  While several people expressed relief when they saw the flow chart showing a multi-year process with check points along the way, a more vocal crowd expressed frustration that their questions had not been answered or did not feel that their concerns about the general principles were being heard.  I have shared this with our leadership and made some recommendations.

I am planning to put some links on my website (www.katewebbvt.com)  to help people get answers to their questions and follow the action unfolding in the Senate.  This should be up before the weekend.  In the meantime, I will field questions related to your situation by email: klwebb22@mac.com.  The more specific and focused the questions, the easier it will be for me to get back to you. Do remember that the only staff I have is myself.  There is extensive information and a list of frequently asked questions on this website: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/healthCareReform.aspx that I will also post on mine.

Of ongoing concern to everybody has been “how much will it cost” and “how will we pay for this?” We do not know what it will cost yet, but we do have a starting place.  We know what we are spending now ($4.7 billion) and we know where we are headed in the…

On March 24, the Vermont House passed H.202, the Health Care Bill.  Many residents have contacted me with concerns about the steps toward reform outlined in H.202.  To address this, I have asked two experts on the bill to come to Shelburne to speak with us. Anya Rader Wallack, Special Assistant to the Governor for Health Reform, and Mark Larson, Chair of the House Health Care Committee will be at the Shelburne Town Offices on Tuesday, April 5^th from 6:30-8:30 to help explain the House-passed version of the bill and answer your questions.

Although there is much angst about H.202, one thing that seems to bring universal agreement is this: our current system is unsustainable.  We currently spend $5 billion per year on health care in Vermont and these costs are expected to grow at a rate that far exceeds personal income growth, state revenues and the ability of many businesses to pay these costs.

This is not to say that there are not many wonderful things about our current system, and much testimony pointed to concerns about losing the good things that we have.  The problem, however, is the way we deliver and pay for this system is so complex and chaotic, without broad reform, we won’t have the potential to find the savings that we must find and are likely to lose these good things in the process.

H.202 has three reform components that are implemented over a 5-7 year period with checks along the way.  First, it…

While the Japanese struggle to recover from the recent tsunami, Libyans fight in the streets, and Vermonters worry about the future of health care, I have been working on one seemingly small issue that actually has broad implications regarding the future of wildlife ownership and management in our small state.  Before I tell this story, I want you to know that I am reviewing your e-mails, phone messages and talking with those of you visiting the State House regarding concerns about health care, and human service budget cuts.  Much is still in flux at this point and I continue to share your concerns with legislative leadership. I expect some clarity on these issues within the next couple of weeks.

If one only catches sound bites, H.91. or “Public Trust bill, “ appears to be about whether a certain moose named “Pete” with friends on Facebook, gets a stay of execution or lives out his remaining years as a partially domesticated pet.  That is not what the bill is about although I would currently guess that Pete is going to be just fine.  H.91 puts in statute that the native fish and wildlife are collectively held by everyone as part of the public trust and cannot be reduced to private ownership.

The Public Trust Doctrine of wildlife is a bedrock concept of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and is why this country enjoys the greatest diversity, quality, and quantity of game animals and other wildlife in the world.  There…

In addition to being a member of the Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee in the Legislature, I also serve on the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) for the future of Lake Champlain. The mission of the CAC is to gather and disseminate information and make recommendations about the condition and management of the waters of the Lake Champlain basin region. Working with government and non-government groups, we recommend priorities for improving the health of the Lake.  Our 2011 list will be presented to the Vermont Legislature in mid-March.

Most of these priorities have been on the list for some time.  Most will also require additional dollars at a time when budgets are shrinking.  Funding from the EPA, often the biggest source of financial support for programs, is also on the chopping block in Washington.

As I reviewed the list, there seemed to be only one remaining “low hanging fruit” and that was restricting the use of phosphorus (P) in fertilizer on non-agricultural turf.  To implement this, there would be no impact on government spending, no financial impact on taxpayers, and would ultimately put some teeth in the 2007 educational campaign known as “Don’t P on the Lawn.”  I introduced this bill, H.26, in January and it passed the House on a unanimous voice vote on February25^th. It is now on its way to the Senate.

What is the problem with phosphorus anyway? Excessive amounts of phosphorus create a perfect breeding ground for toxic algae blooms that deplete the amount of…

Last week, Goveernor Shumlin delivered his first budget address.  As I read the blogs and listen to the conversations in the State House, I hear Republicans generally approve of the budget, but are a bit annoyed that it sounds a lot like Governor Douglas.  Progressives can’t keep their eyes off the massive cuts to human services without any attempt to raise taxes. I am reluctant to speak for the rather large and varying House Democratic Caucus, however the general sense seems to be no big surprises, the devil is in the details but seem more comfortable with Shumlin’s version of realism and his vision for the future.   That same day, the Secretary of Administration began working with the House money committees, a big change from the typical 2-3 week lag of years past.  The general lack of clapping during the speech is some indication of the seriousness of the tone.  What is there to celebrate?

The budget process is an arduous one and traditionally goes like this:  1) look at projected revenues; 2) look at last years budget; 3) add for inflation and new initiatives; 4) ask, “where can we cut?”  In this model, the executive branch comes to the legislature with dizzying streams of numbers showing where the money will go but this isn’t very revealing, because it doesn’t tell us what results we will get for that money.

The problem with this long held tradition is the tendency to focus on dollars and positions rather than results.  By…

I wanted to write to you about the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission report and the role of the Legislature.

The so-called Blue Ribbon Tax Commission was brought to life by the Legislature during the veto-override special session in 2009.  It called for a three-member panel to provide a structural analysis of the state’s revenue system and to offer recommendations for improvements, modernization and a long-term vision for the state tax structure.   Governor Douglas appointed Bill Sayre, Senate Pro-tem Shumlin appointed Kathleen Hoyt and House Speaker Smith appointed Bill Schubart.  The tax system was to be easier to understand, sustainable, equitable, economically competitive and “revenue neutral.” In other words, revenues added would be in direct proportion to revenues reduced.  The desire was to create a 21^st century tax system with a big picture perspective rather than picking away piecemeal at incentives and taxes.

On January 12^th, the Commission unveiled its 175 page report to the Legislature.  The report focuses on core concepts and purposefully does not get into specific detail.  The job of the Legislature, beginning with the House Ways and Means committee, will be to go through each concept and flesh out the details.  During this time, the committee will take testimony from experts, advocates and citizens and this can include you. .   I encourage you to go to the website: http://www.vermonttaxreform.org/library/ and click on “Final Report.”  For a quick summary go to page 15 to read the 3-page executive summary.

An interesting part of the report includes a…