Editor’s note: Inside the Golden Bubble is an occasional column on politics.
Last week was a doozey for the Vermont House of Representatives. Lawmakers spent four full days in politically charged debates over the budget, tax and health care reform bills that passed, one by one, right on schedule (though the “single-payer” legislation wasn’t approved on third reading until 12:48 a.m. Thursday). By Friday, legislators were looking pretty bedraggled and began to sound cranky as they took up more than a dozen amendments.
The Democrats steamrolled through the money bills, despite hard-charging pushes from the left (liberals in the party and Progressives) and the right (Republicans). Not a single amendment of significance by a representative outside the Democratic fold (no matter how reasonable) was considered on the floor. The suggestion that the work of the House Appropriations, Ways and Means and Health Care committees’ work wasn’t perfect in every way was treated either as a personal attack, an act of disrespect, or, in a slightly better light, as an affront to the integrity of the legislative process.
“Discipline” is the watchword for Dems these days. Loyalty to their committees, their speaker and their governor is of the utmost importance to the rank and file. The leadership’s ability to get back benchers to line up behind a given policy is impressive, but does this adherence to political hierarchy take precedence over policy suggestions from outside the collective group think that might in fact improve the flavor (and quality) of the legislative sausage-making — even if it gives leadership a slight case of indigestion?
Lawmakers are told that if they are going to vote against the preordained party position to do the courtesy of letting the leadership know (so that there is time for persuasive counter action).
As one member put it, “you have to drink the Kool-Aid” to get along. Power emanates from the Speaker’s office and woe betide the chair who dares to buck the party line. Witness Rep. Johannah Donovan’s retreat from support of an amendment that would have placed a surtax on high income taxpayers. Though Donovan, a staunch Democrat from Burlington, initially sponsored the proposal, when it came to the floor, she reneged on her support, sources say, because she was told she could lose her coveted seat as chair of House Education.
So much for House Speaker Shap Smith’s assertion at the beginning of the session that there could be dueling press conferences with the governor over possible policy disputes. On the other hand, “discipline” is the hallmark of a well run House, some observers say, and the efficacy of the legislative process is a harbinger of a timely adjournment. After all, the Dems are in charge of the executive and legislative branches of government, though it’s rare to see such pervasive uniform thinking.
Here are a few key ideas and statements from several dissenting voices from last week’s debate:
- Rep. Cynthia Browning, D-Arlington, warned her colleagues that the universal health care legislation could impact the state’s AAA bond rating if it does not include a provision requiring a 5 percent reserve fund. Browning said the state would need to set aside $200 million, for example, if the new health care system costs $4 billion, as some have estimated. (Vermont spends $5 billion a year on the medical industry now; the new system is supposed to save money.) She also advised lawmakers to consider requiring that an actuary be one of the five members on the Green Mountain Care Board. CLARIFICATION: Her recommendations were not presented as an amendment to the legislation. Rep. Mark Larson, D-Burlington, chair of House Health Care pointed out that H.202 requires in Section 8 that the Secretary of Administration to consider (5) whether it is necessary or advisable to implement a financial reserve requirement or reinsurance mechanism to reduce the state’s exposure to financial risk in the operation of Green Mountain Care;
- Rep. Oliver Olsen, R-Jamaica, presented an amendment addressing a change in the General Fund transfer to the Education Fund. Olsen said the amount was set to decrease by about $8 million in fiscal year 2013 because of the way the formula for calculating the revenue shift works. He said this is a back door way of shifting the tax burden onto property tax owners. His amendment failed.
- Rep. Tom Koch, R/D-Barre Town, suggested that House members consider reinstating $319,000 in funding for high school student assistance professionals who help teenagers with substance abuse problems. The governor recommended zeroing out the program; House Appropriations restored 25 percent of the funding. Koch’s proposal would have left the SAPs with 50 percent; the money would have come from the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board. The suggestion was not supported.
- Rep. Paul Poirier’s proposals to restore most of the human services cuts – through tax increases, use of $11 million in stabilization reserve funds and use of tobacco trust fund dollars — elicited tepid responses from the Democratic caucus. After his ideas were dismissed by House budget-writers on Friday, Poirier intoned: “I’m a guest in your room, and I’m glad to be here, but I don’t know the difference, when we start getting down to this kind of level of cuts and what we’re doing to people, what being a Democrat is about. I’m very frustrated with what’s happening in D.C. We have a president who wants to cut $40 billion. I’m just saying I can tell you someone sat in the seat you’re in before and worked their butts off to get some of these programs in place.” His two amendments to the budget bill were rejected shortly afterward.
- Rep. Adam Greshin, I-Warren, voted for the universal health care bill, but he did so “with trepidation.”
I supported the amendments presented by the member from Arlington, and one of the amendments from the member from Northfield. For different reasons I think they would have been an improvement over what we were presented. But at the end of the day, I had to make a decision about what was put in front of me. And I decided to vote to proceed. I didn’t vote for a benefits package, I didn’t vote for a financing method, I didn’t vote for a cost-sharing method. Those decisions have yet to be made and we will surely have the opportunity to voice our opinions before they are. In the final analysis, I decided the only thing worse than voting for this bill would be to vote to do nothing.
I’m a private employer and we have a mid-sized health insurance plan for our employees. As such, we are at ground zero in the famous cost shift. And we are being punished annually for our misfortune.
I too have concerns with this bill. Specifically, setting the base benefit level at Catamount Blue and an actuarial value of health services at .87 virtually guarantees financial failure of this plan. I am comforted by the language in the bill that shows this is the “intent” of the legislature as opposed to the requirement. I’m confident further analysis will require readjustment of these goalposts and we will make them.
But that’s just the point. None of those decisions are set in stone. In fact, not much of anything is set in stone in this bill. In voting for it, I’m saying to proceed.
Perhaps the Dems, after a weekend of R and R, will take time to reflect on some of the criticisms the GOP leveled at the partisan nature of the legislative process before they charge ahead with the omnibus energy bill, the capital bill and transportation bill (all likely this week). Not to mention proposals to substantially change the public records act and a plan to give childcare workers the right to unionize. But that perhaps is unlikely — this is politics, after all.
Expect to see the focus shift to Senate now, as the money bills make their way through the more deliberative body. Senators will begin to move beyond thumb-twiddling testimony taking into high gear this week.
Editor’s note: A write-thru of this story was posted at 7:05 a.m.
