by Rob RoperRob Roper

It is safe to say that all or at least most of us believe that Vermont is a very special place, and we all want to do what’s necessary to preserve and pass on this unique treasure that both draws and keeps us here – majestic mountains, pristine waters, and wild, open spaces. The question is, what is the best policy for doing so.

On April 15, the State Senate passed a resolution declaring:

That the Senate of the State of Vermont recognizes that climate change is real, that human activities make a substantive contribution to climate change, and that it is imperative Vermont take steps now to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in order to promote energy independence and meet the State’s statutory goals for reduced greenhouse gas emissions….

These statutory goals mean putting Vermont on a path toward getting 90 percent of our energy, including that for home heating and transportation, from renewable, preferably local sources by 2050. This sounds all well and good until one considers the cost, and we’re not talking about money. The policy of generating so much electricity from wind and solar plants will require developing thousands of acres of Vermont’s pristine landscape for industrial energy production. This will have profoundly negative effects on both the aesthetics and the ecology of the Green Mountain State.

It’s time to bring the climate change debate beyond whether or not the phenomenon exists (the useless quibbling between “deniers” and “alarmists”), and to start seriously discussing in concrete, realistic terms the costs and benefits of specific proposed policies. In other words, if we embark on transitioning to a largely renewable, locally produced energy portfolio, what will the net impact be on our ecosystem both in the short and long term.

Let’s assume for the moment that the most dire climate change predictions are true: human activity is a big factor, and temperatures could rise as much as 4 degrees by the end of the century.

So, if we develop all of Vermont’s usable ridge lines with industrial wind turbines, and develop thousands of acres of pasture land with industrial solar plants, will that have any impact on global climate trends either directly or indirectly? Will this effort and expense be relevant in preserving our own ski or maple sugaring industries, for example, over the next eight decades? Will it prevent the next Irene from happening? The honest answer to all these questions is no.

So, why are we doing this?

Some will argue that while Vermont’s efforts are by themselves futile, we should serve as an example to others. Okay. But, then we have to ask how much of an influence would Vermont’s example have to have to impact global climate trends? If a couple of New England states follow us, would that make a difference? What about the East Coast? Or the Entire United States? The honest answer is, even if the entire world did its best to follow Vermont, the impact by 2100 would be negligible to the point of unnoticeable. And, realistically, what are the odds China and India or even Texas are going to take a cue from Vermont any time soon?

We do know, however, that developing the kind of land intensive energy sources our current policy path calls for will negatively impact our ridge line ecosystems through the construction of industrial wind turbines. Birds and bats will be killed, including endangered species. Thousands of acres of solar panels will disrupt animal habitats, ironically, making it harder for some species to adapt to climate change. And, of course, we will be sacrificing to a great extent the singular beauty of Vermont.

Is this really what we want to do?

A recent article in the New Yorker by environmental conservationist Jonathan Franzen, Carbon Capture: Has climate change made it harder for people to care about conservation, makes several interesting points on this topic, but this one sums it up neatly:

We can dam every river and blight every landscape with biofuel agriculture, solar farms, and wind turbines, to buy some extra years of moderated warming. Or we can settle for a shorter life of higher quality, protecting the areas where wild animals and plants are hanging on, at the cost of slightly hastening the human catastrophe.

Is it worth wiping out wildlife species, habitats, and landscapes today if the end result is an earth is three point nine degrees warmer a hundred years from now instead of four?

We can use our resources to make genuine progress in preserving our mountain tops, cleaning our lakes and waterways, maintaining open spaces, and saving our wildlife, or we can sacrifice all this to no real effect whatsoever. Plan A makes more sense.

- Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute.

{ 2 comments }

Posted by Rob Roper

Vermont Digger reports that Sen. Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is considering expanding Vermont’s 6% sales tax to include services beginning in 2017, lowering the overall rate to 5% over two years. (VT Digger, 5/16/15)

If Ashe is successful in getting this change to the House tax bill through the Senate, he may have an ally in the Speaker of the House, Shap Smith (D-Morristown). Back in 2012 the Speaker made a similar proposal based on a report by the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission. (Note: EAI Board member Bill Sayre was a member of that commission and filed a minority report opposing the expansion of the sales tax.)

However, the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission’s recommendation was for a “revenue neutral” expansion, lowering the overall sales tax rate to somewhere in the neighborhood of 2%. Ashe is not proposing a revenue neutral policy, and would only lower the overall rate to 5%.

This would exacerbate Vermont’s New Hampshire problem as our neighbor to the ease has no sales tax on goods or services. Vermont’s service sector would face the same disadvantage our retail sector now faces – which has been devastating for business and jobs.

The damage from a sales tax on services would be particularly hard on small businesses. Many small businesses contract out services such as payroll, advertising, etc., which they would have to pay tax on. Large businesses that can afford to produce those services “in-house” by full or part time employees would not pay the tax.  The compliance hassles will also be a negative factor as service businesses would now have to collect, keep track of, and remit taxes to the state.

A few examples of services that would be affected by the tax include:

  • Health Care*
  • Education/Tuition*
  • Child Care
  • Automotive repair labor
  • Information Technology
  • Web/Graphic design
  • Payroll services
  • Home Maintenance
  • Plow services
  • Construction/Carpentry
  • Barbers/Hairdressers
  • Real Estate
  • Architectural services
  • Advertising
  • Accounting
  • Legal services
  • Cleaning services
  • Landscaping
  • Electricians
  • Plumbing & Heating
  • And many more…

* Some proposals would exempt these services.

 

 

{ 1 comment }

Roll Call Graphic
.
PASSED
in the State Senate on April 15, 2015 by a vote of
25-5 

.
Purpose: S.R.7 resolves, “That the Senate of the State of Vermont recognizes that climate change is real, that human activities make a substantive contribution to climate change, and that it is imperative Vermont take steps now to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in order to promote energy independence and meet the State’s statutory goals for reduced greenhouse gas emissions…”
.
Analysis: Though this resolution is non binding, it is part of a plan for “laying the groundwork” for a carbon tax in 2016, as well as other policies related to expanding and subsidizing renewable energy developers. Those voting YES on S.R.7 have resolved to “take steps now….” Those voting NO recognized the obvious political nature of in this resolution. Sen. Joe Benning stated in opposition, “the Senate should not ‘grandstand meaningless resolutions’ that ‘serve as fodder for political advocacy organizations to attract dollars from their followers (VT Digger),’” a reference to the fact that some language in the resolution was lifted directly from VPIRG promotional materials.
.
Senate Journal, Wednesday, April 15, 2015. “… the Senate resolution was read the third time and adopted on a roll call, Yeas 25, Nays 5.” (Read the Journal, p. 447-448)
.
Related Materials: 
Post/Video: John McClaughry Testifies on Climate Change Resolution.
Post/Video: Legislature “Laying the Groundwork” for Carbon Tax in 2015


How They Voted

(Click on Your Senator’s Name to Send an Email)

Timothy Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) – YES
Claire Ayer (D-Addison) -YES
Becca Balint (D-Windham) – YES
Philip Baruth (D-Chittenden) – YES
Joseph Benning (R-Caledonia) – NO
Christopher Bray (D-Addison) – YES
John Campbell (D-Windsor) – YES
Brian Campion (D-Bennington) – YES
Brian Collamore (R-Rutland) – NO
Ann Cummings (D-Washington) – YES
Dustin Degree (R-Franklin) – YES
William Doyle (R-Washington) – YES
Margaret Flory (R-Rutland) – NO
M. Jane Kitchel (D-Caledonia) – YES
Virginia Lyons (D-Chittenden) – YES
Mark MacDonald (D-Orange) – YES
Richard Mazza (D-Chittenden-Grand Isle) – YES
Norman McAllister (R-Franklin) – NO
Richard McCormack (D-Windsor) – YES
Kevin Mullin (R-Rutland) – YES
Alice Nitka (D-Windsor District) – YES
Anthony Pollina (P/D/W-Washington) – YES
John Rodgers (D-Essex-Orleans) – NO
Richard Sears (D-Bennington) – YES
Diane Snelling (R-Chittenden) – YES
Robert Starr (D-Essex-Orleans) – YES
Michael Sirotkin (D-Chittenden) – YES
Richard Westman (R-Lamoille) – YES
Jeanette White (D-Windham) – YES
David Zuckerman (P-Chittenden) – YES

Not yet signed up? Join the EAI email list today.

{ 2 comments }

Posted by Rob Roper 

Republican members of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee warned members of their caucus on Tuesday that their committee was preparing to spring a Carbon Tax on Vermont as soon as 2016.

Rep. Mike Hebert (R-Vernon) explained, “What we’re doing right now is laying the groundwork for next year. I think we will see a Carbon Tax bill next year.”

The proposal discussed in the committee called for a $100 per metric ton tax on carbon emissions, which works out to roughly $1.00 per gallon of gasoline.

According to Hebert, proponents tax who testified before the committee did not look into the impact of such a tax on employment in Vermont. “We asked basic questions, like how many gallons of diesel [fuel] are used on farms,” said Hebert. “They had no clue.” Hebert looked up the data for himself and found that the number is about 7 million gallons per year. “So, that would mean somewhere between $6.3 million and $7 million on our farmers.” That number was just for farm work, and did not include transportation or other uses.

Rep. Tom Burditt (R-Rutland) described what this tax would mean for his small landscaping business. According to Burditt, he uses roughly 2500 gallons of gasoline per year. The tax, would mean $2500 coming directly out of his pocket. In addition, Burditt said that he used 700-800 gallons of fuel oil for heat. The total carbon tax hit on his income would be well over $3000.

{ 3 comments }

Posted by Rob Roper

The Carbon Tax is a topic of conversation again in the House Natural Resources & Energy Committee. Speaking at the House Republican Caucus meeting, Rep. Tom Burditt (R-Rutland) described what this tax would mean for his small lawn mowing business.

According to Burditt, he uses roughly 2500 gallons of gasoline per year. The tax, which would mean an estimated additional $1.00 per gallon tax on gasoline, would mean $2500 coming directly out of his pocket. In addition, Burditt said that he used 700-800 gallons of fuel oil for heat. The total carbon tax hit on his income would be well over $3000.

The REMI study that advocates of the Carbon Tax are using to promote the concept says that a Carbon Tax would be a benefit to Vermont’s economy. However, according to the briefing to the caucus by members of the Natural Resources & Energy Committee, a representative from REMI admitted that the report did not consider this kind of impact on jobs and middle class incomes like Burditt’s.

WATCH VIDEO

{ 3 comments }

by Shayne Spence

“The gods of the valleys are not the gods of the hills, and you shall understand it.” – Ethan Allen

Opponents to Montpelier’s latest installment of gun control testified before the House Judiciary Committee on April 9, 2015, and their message was a resounding rejection of S. 141.  This legislation is largely redundant, as it simply changes Vermont law to more closely mirror federal law regarding felons and those with mental illness owning guns.  But despite the apparent lack of new restrictions, this bill will have many negative side effects, as opponents laid out in their testimony.

Chris Bradley of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmens Clubs was unequivocal in his opposition to the bill, calling it redundant, unnecessary, and pointing out that provisions dealing with felon ownership of firearms represents an unfunded mandate.  Since there are already federal laws on the books, with federal resources paying for enforcement of those laws and incarceration by those laws, Vermont is able to save significant money letting Uncle Sam take control of those cases.  By passing a mirror law in Vermont statute, we take responsibility for those cases, along with whatever financial responsibility that brings.  This was brought up during floor debate in the Senate, but ultimately ignored in the rush to pass the bill.

Bill Moore of the Vermont Traditions Coalition asked members of the committee, “Why are we here?  It certainly not because Vermont has a violent crime or firearms crime problem.”  He pointed out that in many states across the country, including deeply blue Illinois, legislatures are taking an opposite approach to firearms, with “Vermont Carry” passing through State Houses nationwide in an attempt to make sure firearms are in the right hands.

Both men and their respective organizations stood firmly in opposition to any waiting period to restoring constitutional rights after the courts find a person to be no longer a threat to themselves or others.  Senator Joe Benning, who is a lawyer when he is not a lawmaker, testified that it oftentimes takes six months to a year to complete normal civil proceedings, creating an effective waiting period by merits of scheduling.  To add another 18 months on top of that, as S. 141 proposes to do, would be unnecessarily restricting someone’s 2nd Amendment and Article 16 rights, long beyond the point when they had been adjudicated to be safe.

S. 141 appears to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  When it comes to firearms, the control does not come in a flood, but in slow trickles.  Vermont lawmakers have (rightfully so) been loath to change gun laws here, fearing the electoral backlash that could come.  Those floodgates are slowly starting to come open.  H. 735 of 2014 further restricted a certain group of person from owning firearms, and S. 141 proposes to add two new groups to that restricted class.  It is only a matter of time before the gun grabbers in Montpelier become more brazen and attempt to go further.  As Gun Sense VT President Ann Braden said, “This is a good first step.”

Shayne Spence is the Outreach and Development Coordinator for the Ethan Allen Institute.

{ 3 comments }

by John McClaughryJohn McClaughry

The Vermont legislature has entered the final four weeks of its 2015 session. The House has passed its appropriations, tax and health care “reform” bills, and the Senate is now well along in its consideration of those measures. It’s too soon to predict how differences between the two chambers will be resolved, but the outline of their likely product is emerging.

The legislature will send the Governor a balanced General Fund budget, they will keep the three statutory reserve funds filled to required levels, and they won’t cheat on the required $300 million transfer to the Education Fund. That’s good news.

To close a $113 million budget gap, the House turned aside $53 million that the Shumlin administration wanted, above and beyond what it got last year. This is referred to as a “cut”, but it is only a “cut” from desires and expectations, not from last year’s spending level.

The House also threw in $24 million in “one time funds”, $5 million of it from a rainy day reserve fund, and $1.5 million in effect from the Transportation Fund.

The House proposal to cap income tax deductions will squeeze an estimated $35 million out of taxpayers who itemize deductions, unless lots of them cut way back on charitable contributions to avoid it.

The Governor won’t get his new 0.7% payroll tax, but he’ll fight to get some payroll tax that can be jacked up later. His argument for instituting a new tax is “to reduce the Medicaid cost shift, and thus reduce rising health insurance premiums”.

The legislature has become wary of such claims – especially from Peter Shumlin, who also wants the payroll tax proceeds to finance his Green Mountain Care Board’s further ventures into government-run health care. Speaker Shap Smith remarked that this sleight of hand proposal “poisoned the well” for the payroll tax, and Senate Finance Chair Tim Ashe has said it’s not likely to move in the Senate.

Unless deterred by a popular uprising, the legislature may also impose a new tax on “sweetened beverages”. This revenue grab started out supposedly as a way of fighting Attorney General Sorrell’s campaign against obesity.

The tax advocates’ original proposal of $1.44 tax on a sixpack of sugar-containing soda – called by some “Vermont’s latest gift to New Hampshire” – will be reduced to perhaps 36 cents per sixpack, but the advocates now want to apply the tax to diet soda which people drink to avoid obesity. The Senate may well turn thumbs down on the whole idea, which even the Governor, eager as he is for health care spending, still opposes.

In a similar vein, the legislature may expand the 6% sales tax to vitamins and dietary supplements, which people take to maintain their health, as well as adding 25 cents a pack more on cigarettes, which people use to damage their health.

There will be at least a one cent increase in the base non-residential school property tax rate that feeds the Education Fund. This will be the fifth rate increase in five years.

More importantly, the House-passed education bill will for the first time in Vermont history force school districts to consolidate into regional education districts resembling waste management districts, and most likely controlled by “stakeholders”, not citizens.

Also for the first time in history, the state will impose an annual spending increase cap on all school districts. The proposal to lower educational costs by expanding parental choice never even got a hearing in the House, and won’t in the Senate. Instead, the House bill consciously restricts choice and protects monopolies, as it lurches toward creating a One Big School System controlled from Montpelier.

The ineptly named health care “reform” bill will not include allowing businesses and individuals to purchase insurance outside the failed Vermont Health Connect. Instead, it will strengthen the Board’s already sweeping authority to hammer independent doctors and clinics, in order to protect the “system” of higher-priced hospitals and their owned practices.

With the action switched to the Senate, the militant left, led by the Vermont State Employees Association, came out in force Saturday in a Statehouse “Fight Back Rally” to oppose all spending “cuts”, demand higher taxes on “the wealthy”, and wage war on “inequality”. If the legislature rejects their demands, that will be about as much as friends of limited government, lower taxes, less centralized control, better economic prospects, and more freedom are likely to get this year. It’s not much.

- John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute(www.ethanallen.org).

 

 

{ 1 comment }

Roll Call Graphic
.
FAILED
in the State Senate on April 10, 2015 by a vote of
9-21 

.
Purpose: The Collamore Amendment would have allowed for a one day sales tax holiday in Vermont. From the amendment: “a sales and use tax or local option sales tax shall not be imposed or collected on sales to individuals for personal use items or tangible personal property at a sales price of $2,000.00 or less on August 29, 2015.”
.
Analysis: Those voting YES on this amendment were for the sales tax holiday. Those voting NO were opposed to it.
.
Senate Journal, Friday, April 10, 2015. “Shall the bill be amended as recommended by Senator Collamore and Balint?, was disagreed to on a roll call, Yeas 9, Nays 21.” (Read the Journal, p. 410-411)
 .


How They Voted

(Click on Your Senator’s Name to Send an Email)

Timothy Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) – NO
Claire Ayer (D-Addison) – NO
Becca Balint (D-Windham) – YES
Philip Baruth (D-Chittenden) – NO
Joseph Benning (R-Caledonia) – YES
Christopher Bray (D-Addison) – NO
John Campbell (D-Windsor) – NO
Brian Campion (D-Bennington) – NO
Brian Collamore (R-Rutland) – YES
Ann Cummings (D-Washington) – NO
Dustin Degree (R-Franklin) – YES
William Doyle (R-Washington) – YES
Margaret Flory (R-Rutland) – YES
M. Jane Kitchel (D-Caledonia) – NO
Virginia Lyons (D-Chittenden) – NO
Mark MacDonald (D-Orange) – NO
Richard Mazza (D-Chittenden-Grand Isle) – NO
Norman McAllister (R-Franklin) – YES
Richard McCormack (D-Windsor) – NO
Kevin Mullin (R-Rutland) – YES
Alice Nitka (D-Windsor District) – NO
Anthony Pollina (P/D/W-Washington) – NO
John Rodgers (D-Essex-Orleans) – NO
Richard Sears (D-Bennington) – NO
Diane Snelling (R-Chittenden) – NO
Robert Starr (D-Essex-Orleans) – NO
Michael Sirotkin (D-Chittenden) – NO
Richard Westman (R-Lamoille) – YES
Jeanette White (D-Windham) – NO
David Zuckerman (P-Chittenden) – NO

Not yet signed up? Join the EAI email list today.

{ 1 comment }

Posted by Rob Roper

The Vermont State Employees Union is running a radio ad asking Vermonters to attend a rally in hopes of convincing the legislature to raise taxes more than the $80 million or so in tax increases the House is going to ultimately to pass over to the Senate for consideration.

VSEU’s argument is that “something is wrong in Montpelier” in that since 2009 the middle class has been shrinking faster in Vermont than all other states but one (California – another state with supermajority left wing rule). They cite studies saying that since that time, income for the wealthiest 20% of Vermonters has increased by 3% while income for the middle class has decreased by 6%. Their answer: RAISE REVENUE!

Here’s what’s wrong with that argument. If the middle class has been getting hammered since 2009, and the gap between the rich and poor is widening, what’s happened over that time period to achieve such poor results? Well, 2009 was year the Democratic/Progressive supermajorities in both chambers of the legislature overrode then Governor Jim Douglas’ budget veto to go on a spending spree? 2010 followed with Peter Shumlin’s election to the governorship giving the liberal left in Vermont complete control over all leavers of state government. And, over this time period, Montpelier has raised revenue and increased spending significantly.

In 2009, total state appropriations were $4,439,369,923. For 2015, they are $5,592,162,894, an increase of 26 percent! General fund spending has grown from $1,144,778,770 to $1,439,922,691, an increase of 25.8%. And, human services spending has grown from $458,065,396 to $648,001,549, a 42 percent increase! (VTTransparency.org)

Perhaps it’s time to consider that the middle class is getting hammered in Vermont because we keep raising more and spending more revenue. Montpelier is taxing away the middle class’ money (higher income taxes, higher property taxes, higher gasoline taxes, higher electric rates, and now, perhaps a sweetened beverage tax and whatever else they think they can get away with), and taxing away their employers’ money with higher fees, expensive regulations, costly healthcare “reform”, and now a potential payroll tax on top of all that.

VSEU is right. The Vermont middle class has been taking a pounding since 2009. But the answer isn’t to continue on the path of taxing more and spending more. That’s what we’ve been doing to get the results we’ve got – and they stink! Isn’t that Einstein’s definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. How ’bout we try doing the opposite.

- Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute

{ 3 comments }

Roll Call Graphic. 
FAILED
in the State House of Representatives
on April 8, 2015, by a vote of
70-73
.
Purpose: The Lalonde amendment would have banned both teachers’ ability to strikes and school boards’  ability to impose contract terms. It would also have set up a task force to study less disruptive means of resolving contract disputes.
 .
Analysis: Those voting YES favored banning teachers strikes, citing the disruption such strikes have on communities, and the fact that 37 other states do not allow teachers to strike. Those voting NO supported teachers’ strikes, because, as Rep. Helen Head (D-South Burlington, chair General Housing & Military Affairs Committee, which opposed the bill) stated, “we are removing a system that we know and replacing it with something that we don’t know.” (VT Digger, 4/7/15)
 .
As Recorded in the House Journal, Wednesday, April 8, 2015: “Shall the report of the Committee on Education be amended as proposed by Rep. Lalonde of South Burlington and others? was decided in the negative. Yeas, 70. Nays, 73.*” (Read the Journal, p.976-985.)
.
* The original vote was 71-72, but Rep. Komline (R-Dorset) changed her Yes vote to a No vote so as to be able to call for reconsideration of the legislation the following day.

How They Voted

(Click on your Rep’s name to send an email)

Janet Ancel (D-Calis) – NO

Bob Bancroft (R-Westford) – YES

John Bartholomew (D-Hartland) – NO

Fred Baser (R-Bristol) – YES

Lynn Batchelor (R-Derby Line) – YES

Scott Beck (R-St. Johnsbury) – YES

Steven Berry (D-Manchester Center) – NO

Stephen Beyor (R-Highgate Springs) – YES

Clement Bissonnette (D-Winooski) – YES

William Botzow (D-Bennington) – NO

Carolyn Branagan (R-Georgia) – YES

Patrick Brennan (R-Colchster) – YES

Timothy Briglin (D-Thetford) – NO

Cynthia Browning (D-Arlington) – YES

Thomas Burditt (R-West Rutland) – YES

Mollie Burke (P/D-Brattleboro) – NO

Sarah Buxton (D-Tunbridge) – YES

William Canfield (R/D-Fair Haven) – YES

Stephen Carr (D-Brandon) – NO

Robin Chestnut-Tangerman (P-Middletown Springs) – NO

Kevin Christie (D-White River Jct.) – YES

Alison Clarkson (D-Woodstock) – NO

Joanna Cole (D-Burlington) – NO

James Condon (D-Colchester) – YES

Daniel Connor (D-Fairfield) – NO

Charles Conquest (D-Wells River) – YES

Sarah Copeland-Hanzas (D-Bradford) – NO

Timothy Corcoran (D-Bennington) – YES

Lawrence Cupoli (R-Rutland) – YES

Leigh Dakin (D-Chester) – YES

Maureen Dakin (D-Colchester) – YES

Paul Dame (R-Essex Junction) – YES

Susan Davis (P/D-Washington) – NO

David Deen (D-Putney) – NO

Dennis Devereux (R-Belmont) – YES

Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (R-St. Albans) – YES

Anne Donahue (R-Northfield) – YES

Johannah Donovan (D-Burlington) – NO

Alyson Eastman (I-Orwell) – YES

Rebecca Ellis (D-Waterbury) – NO

Alice Emmons (D/W-Springfield) – NO

Debbie Evans (D-Essex) – NO

Peter Fagan (R-Rutland) – YES

Martha Feltus (R-Lyndonville) – YES

Rachael Fields (D-Bennington) – NO

Larry Fiske (R-Enosburg Falls) – YES

Robert Forguites (D-Springfield) – NO

William Frank (D-Underhill) – NO

Patsy French (D-Randolph) – NO

Douglas Gage (R-Rutland) – YES

Marianna Gamache (R-Swanton) – YES

Diana Gonzalez (P/D-Winooski) – NO

Maxine Grad (D-Moretown) – NO

Rodney Graham (R-Williamstown) – YES

Adam Greshin (I-Warren) – YES

Sandy Haas (P/D-Rochester) – NO

Helen Head (D-So. Burlington) – NO

Michael Hebert (R-Vernon) – YES

Robert Helm (R/D-Fair Haven) – YES

Mark Higley (R-Lowell) – YES

Mary Hooper (D-Montpelier) – NO

Ronald Hubert (R-Milton) – YES

Mark Huntley (D-Cavendish) – YES

Timothy Jerman (D-Essex) – NO

Willem Jewett (D-Ripton) – NO

Mitzi Johnson (D-S. Hero) – NO

Bernard Juskiewicz (R-Camdridge) – YES

Kathleen Keenan (D-St. Albans) – YES

Warren Kitzmiller (D-Montpelier) – NO

Anthony Klein (D-Montpelier) – NO

Patricia Komline (R-Dorset) – NO*

Robert Krebs (D-S. Hero) – YES

Jill Krowinski (D-Burlington) – NO

Rob LaClair (R-Barre Town) – YES

 

Martin LaLonde (D-South Burlington) – YES

Diane Lanpher (D-Vergennes) – NO

Richard Lawrence (R-Lyndon) – YES

Paul Lefebvre (R-Island Pond) – YES

Joan Lenes (D-Shelburne) – NO

Patti Lewis (R-Berlin) – YES

William Lippert (D-Hinesburg) – NO

Emily Long (D-Newfane) – YES

Gabrielle Lucke (D-White River Junction) – NO

Terence Macaig (D-Williston) – NO

Ann Manwaring (D-Wilmington) – NO

Michael Marcotte (R/D-Newport) – YES

Marcia Martel (R-Waterford) – YES

Linda Martin (D-Wolcott) – ABSENT

James Masland (D-Thetford) – NO

Curtis McCormack (D/W-Burlington) – NO

Patricia McCoy (R-Poultney) – YES

James McCullough (D-Williston) – NO

Francis McFaun (R/D-Barre) – NO

Alice Miller (D-Shaftsbury) – NO

Kiah Morris (D-Bennington) –  NO

Mary Morrissey (R-Bennington) – YES

Michael Mrowicki (D-Putney) – NO

Barbara Murphy (I-Fairfax) – YES

Linda Myers (R-Essex) – YES

Betty Nuovo (D-Middlebury) –  NO

Anne O’Brien (D-Richmond) – ABSENT

Jean O’Sullivan (D-Burlington) – NO

Oliver Olsen (I-Jamaica) – YES

Corey Parent (R-St. Albans) – YES

Carolyn Partridge (D-Windham) –  NO

Avram Patt (D-Worcestor) – NO

Albert “Chuck” Pearce (R/D-Richford) – ABSENT

Christopher Pearson (P-Burlington) – NO

Paul Poirier (I-Barre) – NO

David Potter (D-Clarendon) – NO

Ann Pugh (D-S. Burlington) –  NO

Joey Purvis (R-Colchester) – YES

Constance Quimby (R/D-Concord) – ABSENT

Barbara Rachelson (D-Burlington) – NO

Kesha Ram (D-Burlington) – NO

Herbert Russell (D-Rutland) – NO

Marjorie Ryerson (D-Randolph) – ABSENT

Brian Savage (R-Swanton) -YES

Heidi Scheuermann (R-Stowe) -YES

David Sharpe (D-Bristol) –  NO

Charles Shaw (R/D-Pitsford) -YES

Loren Shaw (R/D-Derby) -YES

Amy Sheldon (D-Middlebury) – NO

Laura Sibilia (I-West Dover) – YES

Harvey Smith (R-New Haven) -YES

Shapleigh Smith (D-Morristown) – PRESIDING

Thomas Stevens (D-Waterbury) – NO

Vicki Strong (R-Albany) -YES

Valerie Stuart (D-Brattleboro) –  NO

Mary Sullivan (D-Burlington) –  NO

Donna Sweaney (D-Windsor) –  NO

Job Tate (R-Mendon) -YES

Thomas Terenzini (R/D-Rutland) –  NO

George Till (D-Jericho) –  NO

Tristan Toleno (D-Brattleboro) – NO

Catherine Toll (D-Danville) – YES

Maida Townsend (D-S. Burlington) – NO

Matthew Trieber (D-Bellows Falls) -YES

Chip Troiano (D-Hardwick) –  NO

Donald Turner (R-Milton) -YES

Warren Van Wyck (R-Ferrisburgh) -YES

Gary Viens (R-Newport) -YES

Tommy Walz (D-Barre City) –  NO

Kathryn Webb (D-Shelburne) –  NO

Janssen Willhoit (R-St. Johnsbury) -YES

Mark Woodward (D-Johnson) –  NO

Kurt Wright (R-Burlington) -YES

Michael Yantachka (D-Charlotte) – ABSENT

Samuel Young (D-Glover) – YES

Teo Zagar (D-Barnard) – NO

{ 1 comment }

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

5-16-15 – Legislature Exploring Sales Tax Expansion to Services

Posted by Rob Roper Vermont Digger reports that Sen. Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is considering expanding Vermont’s 6% sales tax to include services...

Roll Call! Senate Resolves to “Take Steps Now” on Climate Change (25-5), 2015

. S.R.7 – A RESOLUTION RELATING TO CLIMATE CHANGE   . PASSED in the State Senate on April 15, 2015 by a vote of 25-5  . Purpose: S.R.7 resolves, “That the...

4-15-15 – Legislature “Laying the Groundwork” for Carbon Tax in 2016

Posted by Rob Roper  Republican members of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee warned members of their caucus on Tuesday that their committee was preparing to spring...

4-14-15 – Small Business Owner Describes Impact of Carbon Tax

Posted by Rob Roper The Carbon Tax is a topic of conversation again in the House Natural Resources & Energy Committee. Speaking at the House Republican Caucus meeting,...

4-14-15 – Gun Control Disguised as “Common Sense”

by Shayne Spence “The gods of the valleys are not the gods of the hills, and you shall understand it.” – Ethan Allen Opponents to Montpelier’s latest installment...

Video