[D]emocratic leadership in the House and Senate took aim at the Republican Gov. Phil Scott at a press conference after he vetoed two key progressive bills yesterday.
The two bills, H.196, which would have establish a paid family leave program funded through a payroll tax, and S.40, which would have gradually raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour, were both approved by the General Assembly this session. The House, however, does not have enough support from representatives to override the governor’s veto.
House Speaker Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, said resurrecting paid leave and minimum wage would not be a priority in the special session, essentially eliminating any path forward for this biennium.
Legislative leaders and small business leaders accused the governor of being out of touch with the needs of working families. Johnson and Senate leader Tim Ashe said Scott is only interested in making Vermont livable for the state’s upper echelon.
“We know that too many Vermonters live paycheck to paycheck and the fact that the governor thinks that these Vermonters can afford a expensive voluntary paid leave program shows just how out of touch he is with working families,” Johnson said.
The legislative Democratic message will most likely set the tone for the race for governor later this year, said Eric Davis, a professor of political science at Middlebury College and expert on Vermont politics.
“Whoever the Democratic gubernatorial nominee is — the theme of their campaign will be that Scott talks about affordability but he has rejected a number of proposals that will improve the lives of working Vermonters,” he said.
In two separate letters accompanying his vetoes, the governor said the reason he did not sign the bills was to ensure that Vermont remains affordable.
“I know what it’s like to be a working Vermonter struggling to make ends meet. I have worried about putting food on the table and experienced winters when I had to buy heating oil one 5-gallon bucket at a time to keep my family warm,” he said in his letter attached to the veto of S.40.
Scotts said in the letter that the “weight of evidence” shows that a wage increase would result in job losses and widen the economic gap between Chittenden County and the rest of the state.
“While I agree with the spirit of S.40, I believe the bill is more likely to harm those it intends to help,” he said.
In the letter attached to the veto of paid leave, he suggested a voluntary program instead of a payroll tax.
The tax included in the bill led lawmakers across the aisle to vote against the bill earlier in the session.
Sen. Jane Kitchell, D-Caledonia, said the use of a regressive tax for paid leave would place the “most vulnerable Vermonters at risk.”
But Johnson and Senate President Pro-tem Tim Ashe, D/P-Chittenden said that there was no doubt that these bills are beneficial to Vermont’s future and the working class.
“These bills ensure that no Vermonter is left behind,” Johnson said. “It encourages economic equality across the economic ladder and are vital in ensuring the state remains on the path for a vital, healthy future.”
