Gov. Phil Scott pulled off a trifecta win in the latest election. The “most popular” governor in the country, a non-MAGA, conservative Republican in a liberal state, was easily reelected to a fifth term. And by investing much of his own campaign war chest in defeating liberal legislative leaders in their own districts, he put an end to the “veto-proof” Democratic legislature. The results sent a powerful message to legislative leaders and voters regarding Governor Scott’s frequent messaging on “affordability.”
But like so many slide-off-the-tongue buzzwords, “affordability” can mean anything to anyone and offers no explanation of cause or ideas for solutions. Some Vermonters can’t afford weekly groceries, others college, others the car they want or need, still others a house or safe shelter.
A recent report from the State Auditor’s Office, however, gives us a clear picture as to what is driving the affordability crisis in Vermont. It’s not “tax-and-spend” liberal legislators.
“According to the Vermont Education Health Initiative, through which most teachers receive their health benefit, the plan’s costs grew from $194 million in FY10 to approximately $266 million in FY23. FY24 costs are expected to exceed $300 million, and that does not include the state’s share of most retired teachers’ health benefits.”
The recent Oliver Wyman report commissioned by the Legislature and the Green Mountain Care Board made detailed recommendations for saving some $400M over five years (see page 13).
The GMCB’s recent rate decision with regard to UVM Medical Center set off a tsunami of public relations releases from the UVM Health Network, most of which the Vermont media simply went with. The one powerful exception was A deep-dive report by Colin Flanders of Seven Days, on what is in fact driving the affordability crisis in Vermont.
The PR blitz and lobbying effort by the medical establishment underlines the vital importance of serious investigative journalism in Vermont and the modern world. The incisive reporting raised the question of where our esteemed governor is on the subject of health care in his state and how he plans to lead us to “affordability.” In 2020 Vermonters spent $6.3 billion on healthcare (see page 49). The Vermont state budget is $8.6 billion. The largest of our 14 hospitals, UVM Medical Center, now has an approved budget for FY2025 of nearly $1.9 billion.
From the GMCB’s budget order: “Vermont hospitals account for almost half of the state’s total health care expenditures. In FY24, spending at Vermont hospitals is expected to be $3.6 billion. Collectively, hospitals’ budget submissions reflect a 48% increase over pre-pandemic actuals, an increase of $1.6 billion since FY19. Nonetheless, health care access is unacceptably low, and hospital utilization and patient acuity are increasing.”
Health insurance costs in Vermont are among the highest in the country.
More than ever, we need leadership that gives credit where credit is due while helping us understand the underlying cause of the “affordability” crisis and supporting those working to rein it in.
Gov. Scott, after redesigning the Legislature to better suit his agenda, will now benefit from the good work that the prior Legislature did during the 2023-2024 term.
His veto of Act 76, the child care bill, was overridden by the Legislature and became law in June of 2023 in spite of his vocal opposition. He opposed the bill as a $100-million “payroll tax.” Meanwhile, some 7,000 Vermont families now benefit from greater access and affordability, child care providers are more financially stable, and early educators earn a livable wage.
The Global Warming Solutions Act was designed to align Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals with the Paris Climate Accords. When former President Trump pulled the U.S. out of that agreement during his first administration, Gov. Scott declared that Vermont would abide by the goals of the accords. Since that performative act, he has vetoed the Global Warming Solutions Act and every bill advanced by the Legislature to try and conform with the Paris Accords.
It’s been routine for former governors to propose and legislatures to pass the “fee bill” to ensure that state agencies keep up with inflation. Gov. Scott again chose to scold the Legislature for raising Motor Vehicle fees after 12 years so the state could access additional federal transportation funds.
On the personal side, we are on our fourth Nissan Leaf (Leaves?), getting the gas equivalent of about $1.50 a gallon.
Meanwhile, gasoline and home heating fuel costs have decreased somewhat from their levels in December of 2023.
It is indeed clear that health care, housing, and higher ed constitute “affordability” challenges, but encouraging work is being done on all fronts. Despite PR and lobbying efforts to the contrary by many of the state’s hospitals and their trade association, the GMCB is now seriously regulating growth in health care infrastructure costs and charges.
On the housing front, serious scientific research is being done at The Leahy Center on how and where to locate new manufactured housing that looks beyond our obsession with local control.
The world of higher ed is changing rapidly and our own Community College of Vermont offers a new model that meets learners where they are and is affordable to many. In another indication of health care’s broader impacts, UVM attributed its recent tuition cost increases to its health care costs.
Just as the good economic work done by President Obama accrued to President Trump, and the good economic work done by President Biden, which received little recognition during his presidency, will also accrue to President-elect Trump. This phenomenon of “lag-time impacts” means the benefits of policies often accrue to those who opposed them.
In Vermont, will the many good initiatives of the past legislative session inure to the reputation of the man who opposed them?
In my many years getting to know legislators, I’ve met committed Vermonters of all political stripes working for peanuts, without benefits or adequate resources needed to understand and solve the problems besetting their neighbors. Blaming a spendthrift legislature is easy political posturing but contributes nothing to solutions.
True leadership doesn’t amplify political differences; it bridges them, with the goal of bringing diverse people and ideas together to understand and solve problems.
Blaming and purging those bearing the wrong party label is not leadership.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Bill Schubart: Real leaders don’t amplify differences, they bridge them.