The Deeper Dig is a weekly podcast from the VTDigger newsroom. Listen below, and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify or anywhere you listen to podcasts.
[W]ide majorities in the Vermont House and Senate could let Democrats advance their priorities without fear of a gubernatorial veto. But as the deadlines arrive for bills to cross chambers, leaders say they’re taking a more moderate approach.
“The best way to adopt those policies is with the signature of the governor on a bill after the legislative process,” says Senate President Pro Tem Tim Ashe. “What that means is that enough give-and-take has happened that people can accept the outcome and then move on and implement it in good faith.”
“I think Vermonters want us to compromise,” says House Speaker Mitzi Johnson. “I’d like to see paid family leave and minimum wage go into law. It doesn’t do anybody any good for either side to just park themselves in an idealistic place so that it doesn’t pass or it gets vetoed, and Vermonters never see the benefit of it.”
Ashe, Johnson, and Gov. Phil Scott have all predicted that there will be friction over the details of some policy and budget proposals. But they’re in agreement that the dynamic has changed this year.
“We’re all benefiting from a reset button that’s been hit,” Ashe says.
On this week’s podcast, VTDigger’s Xander Landen talks to Ashe and Johnson about what they expect for the back half of the session.
[showhide type=”pressrelease” more_text=”Read full transcript” less_text=”Hide full transcript” hidden=”yes”]
Xander, what did you do with your week off from the legislative session?
Xander Landen: I got to make use of a free lunch period. Kit and I went to the co-op every day for lunch.
Really?
Xander Landen: That was the highlight of the week. And we, you know, load up on the salad bar. They have really good chicken.
Oh yeah. The hot bar.
Xander Landen: The hot bar, right. It wasn’t every day. It was maybe three out of five.
Xander Landen covers politics for VTDigger. On a normal week, you’ll usually find him in the Statehouse.
Legislators are back this week. How’s it been?
Xander Landen: It’s been good. It’s been busy. There’s sort of a mad dash right now to put the finishing touches on proposals in both the House and the Senate. Because we’re reaching the midpoint of the legislative session. The midpoint is referred to as crossover.
What does that mean?
Xander Landen: It’s the point at which basically bills need to make it out of committees if they’re going to pass the House in the Senate.
So it’s a pretty critical time right now.
Xander Landen: It’s a pretty critical time. And at this point, you know, we can sort of take stock of what’s passed and how people are reacting to it, the governor’s office and various legislative committees. And we sort of have a better sense now of what’s going to make it, where is there going to be compromise, you know. Moreso than at the beginning of the session, when everything is just sort of talking. Now, we actually have some proposals that are moving.
You sat down with the leaders of both chambers, Tim Ashe in the Senate and Mitzi Johnson in the House. What were you hoping to get out of those conversations?
Xander Landen: I think something that that we were really interested in finding out was how the political dynamics are going to be impacting policy this year. Last year was a very contentious legislative session. We saw the governor coming out very strongly at this time about a year ago against a lot of proposals that the democrats had proposed that had tax and fee increases, including bills that he ended up vetoing. He vetoed a lot of proposals last year. So we saw divide between the governor’s office and the legislature. I sort of wanted to get a sense of, are we going to see a big sort of battle at the end of this legislative session? Or are things different this year?
Tim Ashe: Well, I don’t think that we’re taking a different approach to the policies themselves. I think that what we’re seeing, though, is because the dynamic has changed a little bit, that the governor’s team is much more present there in our committee rooms from the beginning, trying to talk about how we can reach compromises. And that’s bringing out the best of both sides. I think the legislative process is benefiting because we’re getting more and better information from state departments to help us make decisions. I think the administration is enabled because of that engagement to see what’s really motivating the policies being brought forward.
So last year, despite that letter outlining a series of proposed vetoes if we didn’t change our ways, we continued to say we have a job to do, which is to legislate and be a separate branch of government. And while we know that always there needs to be some coming together with an administration, we knew we had to do our job and then work with the governor, if possible.
This time, we’re operating really in the same way, except we’re just both benefiting, I think, the governor’s team and the legislature, from a reset button that’s been hit.
Mitzi Johnson: I think the the tones of his first two speeches were very, very different. You know, in past years, the tone was my way or the highway, and here’s what I want. This [year], he has a better sense of where the lanes of the administration are at this point. He signaled right from the get go that he’s putting out ideas as a conversation starter, not as a “get this exact bill to me at this date.” And I have expressed appreciation to him and his staff multiple times for that change of tone. I think it does help us work together, our two branches of government work together, much better for the people of Vermont.
In the past, we found it hard to consider proposals that we’re just at the soundbite stage. Because we are, you know, we’re crafting laws that all of us in a variety of situations have to live by. And so that gets complicated and you have to get into the details. So we’re seeing a little bit more of that this year, of them being able and willing to share some details where they exist. And so there are some places where we don’t necessarily have everything yet, but I think it it is a much better tone than in previous years.
Xander Landen: Now, the governor lost a lot of power in the last election. He lost a lot of the support in the House that he needed from Republicans. The Republicans lost a lot of seats that he had relied on to be able to veto proposals and have support to do that.
So things are different for the governor this year, and things are different for Democrats who have a little more power. So we were trying to get a sense of how is that going to change things? And what lawmakers and the governor’s office are saying is that there’s going to be a real good faith effort this year to compromise, even on proposals that the governor isn’t particularly fond of. He’s willing to compromise and lawmakers are willing to give too.
Gov. Phil Scott: From my standpoint they’ve been working with us, at least listening to some of our ideas. I’m not saying that they’re agreeing with all of our proposals, but at the same time it’s reflective of this change in attitude from both sides. I look forward to working on common goals.
Mitzi Johnson: I think Vermonters want us to compromise. I think Vermonters want us to work across party lines, and I’ll keep doing my best to do that.
You know, there are some things where I think it’s worth at least trying to push for the kind of future for Vermont where we have an economy that works for everybody. And not just the select few. And where we’re, we’re, we’re saying, yes, it does mean a little bit more money. But having a clean lake is critical to our kids, our economy, the ecology, and to Vermont’s future and, and our drinking water, right. So I think there are times that it’s worth pushing the envelope. But for the most part, my history in this building has been about building a consensus, and that’s the way I’ll keep continuing to govern.
Tim Ashe: I firmly believe as a governing philosophy that the best way for any of the issues you just described, whether it’s a minimum wage paid leave legal marijuana sales, that the best way to adopt those policies is with the signature of the governor on a bill after the legislative process, which would reflect compromise that is the single best way because what that means is that enough give and take has happened that people can accept the outcome and then move on and implement it in good faith.
Some would say oh, you know, the the sheer numbers of Democrats in the Senate and in the house can override the governor’s veto. So who cares what the governor thinks? I think that is a really wrong headed way of viewing the way long lasting policy should be done. So my commitment, and I’ve said this to the governor, on these kinds of issues where there’s been a lot of separation in the past, is that we will absolutely sit down and see if there’s a way to come to a compromise that both sides can agree on. And that may not be possible, that’s part of this dynamic, if the governor’s position is absolutely no increase on the minimum wage for instance. That’s a position that if he holds that in his heart and won’t make any budge on behalf of the administration, well, that’s going to be a hard one to find common ground on. But if he says I’m willing to do it, just not the way the Senate or the House has passed it, that’s different.
Mitzi Johnson: Right now my responsibility is making sure that the committees working on these issues right now hear from a full range of perspectives, that everybody’s getting a chance to weigh in. And that bills get passed with a really careful understanding of how it affects a broad range of people.
Most bills that we pass are with unanimous votes. I mean, I don’t know how many bills we’ve done just this week alone on the floor that have worked their way through the committee, you know, everything from you know, changing of criminal statutes to —
Xander Landen: Minimum wage last year barely made it out of committee. I mean, really, that was pretty divided. And I imagine a tax and regulate proposal would also see similar division if it did make it out. You know, just sticking to the minimum wage, I forget what the vote was exactly on the floor. But it wasn’t an overwhelming vote. It certainly wouldn’t have been enough votes to get to 100, if the governor vetoed it —
Mitzi Johnson: We couldn’t get to 100 on anything, right? Any seriously controversial bill, even when we did take an override vote last year, and we had every progressive every democrat and six out of the seven independents voting to override the governor’s veto on the budget, it wasn’t 100, right?
So I think, you know, if we get to a place where there’s a veto override, it’s not a tool that is easy to wield. It’s an important tool that our democracy provides us to help balance the power between the legislative and executive branches. And we’ll you know, we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Tim Ashe: If either the senate or house can’t pass a bill at all because they don’t have the votes, that’s the legislative process. And I think we’re all grown ups here in the Senate. If a bill can’t get through the house because that majority of people don’t support it, I mean, then I hate to say it but that’s life sometimes. And we’ll maybe try and convince people, but when you’ve tried to persuade people, it’s their right not to pass a bill.
The same will sometimes be true in the Senate. They passed a bill last year making driving a seatbelt, what we call a primary offense, meaning people can be pulled over only because the cop suspects that you haven’t been wearing a seat belt. The Senate has very strong civil liberties objections because in the past that has been used primarily in a disproportionate way to pull over people of color and young people. So it goes both ways, I’m trying to articulate.
But I don’t think that we should, because of rather strong majorities in both the House and Senate, have a new standard where we only advance legislation if we think we can get 100 House members and 20 senators in anticipation of a potential veto. We should continue to just do the best job we can on issues we identify as priorities and then try and convince the other side to enlist in the cause.
Mitzi Johnson: I’d like to see paid family leave and minimum wage go into law, you know. It doesn’t do anybody any good for either side to just park themselves in an idealistic place so that it doesn’t pass or it gets vetoed and Vermonters never see the benefit of it.
Xander Landen: Sounds like you’re saying that you you are willing to to negotiate the details to get him a bill that he wants to enact into law. For you, where does that stop? How far would you go? I mean, on those proposals where are you willing to give?
Mitzi Johnson: I mean, I’d honestly like to have those specific conversations with the Senate and the governor first before I have them with the rest of Vermont, if that’s fair. But in our process, I’m having our committees explore a wide range of options so that we’re prepared for that question. So that we understand the consequences of going with option A versus option B on any of the proposals, on minimum wage, on paid family leave, on a broadband expansion, you know, so that we can we can really see results for Vermonters.
Tim Ashe: I think the paid leave bill is a good example, where the initial reaction to the governor’s two state voluntary plan has been — it’s been a little cool, you know, people not quite sure how it could work and be affordable to the people who would want to pay in voluntarily. But I believe it’s a very positive sign the governor has a proposal on the table, because what it means is we have a common objective. And now we can talk about whether there’s a way we can achieve that objective together.
So, yes, absolute willingness to be at the table, trying to find an opportunity to avoid veto showdowns on some of these bills that have created conflict before.
Xander Landen: So the details of perhaps how the paid leave program would be rolled out, the number of weeks of leave, the wage replacement percentage, whether or not — whose administrative program, whether it’s the state or whether it’s an insurer, these are the sorts of things —
Tim Ashe: Yeah, those are all the variables on these policies, and it is reasonable and expected that a governor would have opinions about those because he has to make the decision whether to sign or veto. Some of those variables are easier for the legislature to stomach. Some of the variables will be very difficult to overcome, if they’re being suggested significant change by the governor.
But it’s not so far from here in Massachusetts, where a similar dynamic with the republican governor and a rather heavily weighted democratic legislature addressed a series of these, some of these same issues: paid leave, minimum wage, amongst some other issues. In what they called the, I believe, grand bargain last year, they were able to find some compromises that allowed them all to get not 100% of what they wanted, but to be okay with the outcome. And so I’m not sure that all these items should be bundled together the way they did it in Massachusetts. But I know that they did create a guidepost to say look, not far from here, elected officials with similar philosophies and similar differences were able to sit down at the table and come up with something that people could live with. And I think if they can do it there, we can certainly do it here.
Xander Landen: On minimum wage, would you would you be open to seeing a longer timeline to implement the $15 wage or a lower wage at first, where would you be willing to move on that?
Tim Ashe: If the governor was willing to sign the bill, the answer to that question obviously is a little different. If the governor said, you know, $15 by 2024 is a year too fast, make it by 2025, the Senate would have to seriously entertain that. If the pace within a five year span was slightly altered for reasons that could be justified, certainly entertain that. Those are the kinds of opportunities there are to find some common ground if it’s not there already.
Mitzi Johnson: Of course, there’ll be areas of disagreement. We have, on some of the bigger ones — with childcare we we agreed on sort of what needs to happen. The disagreement there was in the past has been over the source of funds. And in the past, it’s been proposed to come from property taxes, which I do not support and the legislature hasn’t supported, but I think we’re we’re moving towards a way to fund it that does not rely on property taxes. And so I think, you know, I feel like we’ll probably be able to take a really good step forward there for Vermont’s families.
Honestly, I think on all the investment pieces, not just with this administration, but in general, people don’t usually disagree with investing in an area that helps families or helps the common good. Things like childcare, broadband, clean water. It’s where the money comes from. That’s that’s the issue. So that’s the place where we’re we’re going to have disagreement, not just with the administration but even within the legislature. As we try to wind our way through and find find a source that that is fair for Vermonters.
Xander Landen: There is a sort of markedly different approach on both sides to hammering out proposals that both sides can agree to.
That’s what they’ve been saying. Do you think it’s really going to happen?
I can’t tell you that but the narrative is definitely different. I think the biggest, most dramatic sign that compromise is on the horizon was coming from the governor’s office this week. The governor came out and said this week that he’s not going to be putting pressure on lawmakers to contain property taxes. That was one of his signature planks, you know, his signature sort of goals in his first term was to make sure that we didn’t see any tax increases across the board in Vermont. And the sort of commitment to leveling property tax rates last year was what led to an unprecedented weeks long budget standoff. The fact that he’s saying that he’s going to be cooling off to that policy or to that sort of commitment is a sign that I think he’s willing to negotiate with lawmakers.
Phil Scott: I wouldn’t say it’s going to be smooth sailing, but I would say, you know, the devil’s in the details, right? We do agree with the goals but again, there’s there’s always opportunity for disagreement. But again, I want to applaud the legislature for their willingness to listen. They’ve been very receptive to our administration, our commissioners and secretaries coming in describing our proposals and at least listening.
Xander Landen: And I think the fact that lawmakers are saying that they are willing to moderate their proposals to get bills that the governor can sign is also a big step. It may have been said last year by lawmakers, but it was not said as early and as clearly as we’re hearing it now.
Gotcha. So you’ve got a couple of months of watching how these compromises shake out ahead.
Xander Landen: Yeah, that’s right.
Cool. Thanks, Xander.
Xander Landen: Thank you.
Subscribe to The Deeper Dig on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify or anywhere you listen to podcasts. Music by Blue Dot Sessions.
[/showhide]
