Tuesday’s startling setback for H.170, a modest marijuana-legalization bill, was the latest in a string of recent reversals for Vermont’s left — Progressives and Berniecrats especially. For them, it hasn’t been a good fortnight.
While the Vermont legislature has been moving forward on a number of fronts, two of the left’s top priorities — marijuana and raising the minimum wage — have run aground. A third, paid family leave, is in danger of following suit. On top of that, House budget writers have tried their darnedest not to raise taxes or fees — even at the cost of some painful belt-tightening.
Progressive/Democratic Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman sees a missed opportunity to capitalize on political momentum.
“In the land of Bernie, I would hope that we would be a leader on many of these working-class issues,” he says, referring to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). “Voters are tired of establishment politics, and they’re looking for results in their day-to-day lives.”
James Haslam, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Rights & Democracy, agrees.
“It really seems like the new leadership in our state is not coming in with the appetite to take on big things,” he says. “I understand the excuses people make, but we need action.”
Josh Wronski, executive director of the Progressive Party, takes more of a glass-half-full approach.
“We are certainly disappointed on a number of issues, especially the minimum wage and cannabis, which have support from a large majority of Vermonters,” he notes. “On the other hand, having the issues come to the forefront — that is exciting, and I see it as step one, and we’re going to continue fighting.”
The evident disaffection from the left is a familiar theme. During the six-year tenure of former Democratic governor Peter Shumlin, there were frequent tensions between left and center-left. The biggest blow came in December 2014, when Shumlin abandoned single-payer health care. The left-center dynamic within the Democratic Party sharpened with Sanders’ presidential bid.
There’s no talk of an open split. It’s more of a sense that the Dems are on the clock, and the left expects results by the end of the current biennium.
“Biennium” being the key word for legislative leaders. “I think of it as a two-year session,” says Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden).
That’s certainly true of the bill to gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour. It was derailed in the House because a study of its potential impact by state economist Tom Kavet won’t be available in time for action this year, but quick action seems likely in 2018.
“This report [by Kavet] is a little more than a typical standard fiscal note,” says House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D-South Hero). “We owe it to Vermonters to take the time to really look at it carefully and do it right.”
“Obviously they have to be able to make decisions based on the information they say they need,” Haslam acknowledges. “We think it should move forward, and we will make sure they hear that message loud and clear. We’re certainly not going to end this biennium without raising the minimum wage.”
Marijuana legalization suffered a potentially fatal setback, in terms of 2017, at least, when House leadership pulled H.170 from the floor on Tuesday. The bill would allow Vermonters to possess and cultivate small amounts of pot. Legislation to fully legalize marijuana had earlier been sidelined in committee.
Wronski calls the failure to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana a “missed opportunity.” He continues: “We could be raising millions of dollars in revenue. It’s unfortunate that the legislature is taking such a cautious approach to an issue that a large majority of Vermonters support.”
As for paid family leave, a late change to the bill may be fatal to its chances. As originally proposed, employers and employees would have paid equally into the system. Just before crossover, the House Committee on General, Housing and Military Affairs eliminated the employer contribution and put the entire burden on employees.
Which makes the bill less appealing to the left — and no less a target for anti-tax Republicans and tax-shy moderates. But Johnson insists the issue is very much alive.
“This is a strong priority for the caucus, so I do see it moving forward, yes,” she says. Of course, in the legislative process, the bill could be amended yet again or put off entirely for 2018.
Johnson offers an interesting — and unreported — explanation for the sudden change to an employee-only tax.
“I believe it was actually done because there were strong indications of potential support from Republicans in the room,” she says. “So some compromises were made, and then there were some — there were some about-faces on votes.”
In the end, all the Republicans on House General voted “no.”
Did the Democrats get played? Maybe. But whether or not they did, supporters of family leave might wonder why the leadership was trying to get Republican support at all. You’ve got a majority; why not use it?
Were they hoping that a couple of Republican votes in committee would sway GOP Gov. Phil Scott to sign the bill despite his no-new-tax promise? That seems far-fetched.
Whatever happened behind the scenes, the outcome is a bill that’s profoundly distasteful to avid supporters of the family leave concept.
“Placing the entire tax burden on employees is regressive,” Wronski says. “If we’re going to ask working people to help pay the cost, we should also be asking employers to pay some, if not most, of the cost.”
Meanwhile, the House is poised to approve a budget bill this week that is largely written on Scott’s terms — no tax or fee increases. That may smooth the way for a final budget deal, but it’s another disappointment for the left.
“It doesn’t make sense to negotiate against yourself,” says Haslam. “Put forward the things they got elected on. Put those on the governor’s desk, and if he chooses to veto them, they have the chance to override.”
There seems to be little appetite among legislative leadership for the confrontational approach.
“The political process is always a bit conservative when it comes to making change, there’s no doubt about it,” says Zuckerman, who spent 20 years in the legislature. “But I think what this last election nationally showed is that people want significant change.”
Could things get bad enough that the Progressives might field a candidate for governor next year, for the first time since 2008?
“We always leave all cards on the table,” says Wronski. “Running a candidate for governor isn’t something we’re even talking about at the moment one way or the other; we’re not saying we will do it or won’t do it.”
Sounds like they’re not talking about it, but they’re certainly thinking about it.
Vermont’s left feels emboldened by Sanders’ success — especially his astounding 86 percent support in the state’s 2016 presidential primary. They see that as strong evidence that Vermonters are hungry for progressive action. So far this year, say prominent voices on the left, they’re getting not much more than table scraps.
Disclosure: Tim Ashe is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Find our conflict-of-interest policy here: sevendaysvt.com/disclosure
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
There must be a person in the Statehouse whose job it is to buy the chairs, the ink, supply the computers and keep up with buying the everyday essentials that Legislators need to do their job. That person should go ahead and order some spines for all the Democrats who did not support H. 170.
I hope Reps. Sibilia and Krowinski (who represents UVM students?!?!?!) and all the other spineless Dems are prepared to explain to a whole litany of young Vermonters, who will inevitably get arrested between now and whenever it is Vermont decides to legalize, just how their fine/ arrest was worth this bill getting its “proper vetting.” Seems like us Vermonters, who overwhelmingly support marijuana legalization, need to do some “proper vetting” of who we choose to represent us in the Statehouse when we vote in 2018.
Newsflash Adam: marijuana is decriminalized in Vermont. Any young Vermonter that gets arrested for it is either growing or handling a large amount. How does not supporting H.170 make someone spineless? Have you actually read the bill yourself? Judging by your limited knowledge of our current laws, I’d guess that you haven’t. I support legalization. But I can also objectively say that H.170 is a pile of garbage: poorly written, and not structured to bring any significant financial benefit to the state. If you want to smoke weed here in Vermont, you’re not going to have a problem. I’m smoking as I write this. If legislators want to get a legalization bill passed, maybe they should be smarter about it? Unfortunately, the argument in favor of legalization often gets clouded by ignorance, as you’ve demonstrated here.
In the land of Bernie, I would hope that we would be a leader on many of these working-class issues,
Oh, I didn’t realize that sparking up a blunt and spacing out while listening to Pink Floyd was a “working class issue.” I thought that was for college kids and former college kids who haven’t grown up.
I can’t believe that one of our 50 Lieutenant Governors is so absolutely obsessed with making sure that everyone can get high.
Does the “working class” include trust funders who hide in Vermont to “farm”?
Walter, you have a curious definition of decriminalized. Maybe get out of Burlington more? It is spineless to not pass legislation that a majority of Vermonters support. Jill Krowinski represents UVM students and the Old North End. So yes, pretty spineless to not support a piece of legislation a super-majority of your constituents support.
In regards to H. 170 – yes, it is not best piece of legislation to ever hit the Statehouse floor. I supported Sam Young’s bill that would have created a legal, commercial market. H. 170 doesn’t go far enough…but at least it goes somewhere. The de facto decriminalization that we have here in Vermont may work out just fine for folks like yourself – but what about Vermonters who want to grow their own?
I’m not in favor of legalization of pot..guess it’s because I never smoked it..have no desire to..What I take offense to is being called spineless..( as called by Adam) maybe because I use my head..not just follow the liberals.. as for “that a majority of Vermonters support. cannabis, is bull..I know a lot who are oppose to having it legal..
Everyone who likes marijuana is going to keep toking and growing in Vermont whether legal or not….Legislation would be doing many a favor to just get over their BS and just pass it through….Why isn’t government listening to its people?
Donna – the difference between your claim and Adam’s own is that you’re employing anecdotes, while Adam is making a reference to a survey of Vermonters.
And Donna, it seems as though the ‘spineless’ label was directed at certain Vermont legislators. Not you.
I’d mention that you don’t have to use marijuana to be in favor of legalization. As someone who has never used marijuana, you too could benefit from a change to its legal status.
If knowyourassumptions thinks that marijuana use is somehow restricted to “college kids and former college kids”, and somehow not an issue relevant to working class people, s/he clearly knows very little about the patterns of drug use by socioeconomic class.
Data from the HHS published last year showed that 11% of adults with a high school degree or less reported marijuana use in the previous month, compared with 7% for college educated respondents. Another peer-reviewed study published last year found disproportionate marijuana use (in terms of both frequency and volume) among those with low incomes and low educational levels (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/w…
Painting marijuana use as the province of well-off college kids is a profound misrepresentation of the reality. Working class people in our society are disproportionate users of many substances – marijuana, tobacco, opiates – and also more likely to suffer the criminal justice consequences.
Kind of reminds you of Shumlin. Same strategy for the progs and dems: Yeah we can, absolutely, well maybe, not sure, wait for committee, sorry, can’t do it.
When will the constituency figure it out?
Shumlin waited until after the election. At least we know now how the dems and progs back out of a tight spot.
Time to change the elected elite?
Walter Moses, it’s fair to say the Dems and Progs will have to choose between people like Cynthia Browning and the few young voters who do choose to stick around in VT after graduating college.
They don’t get to keep both.
And this isn’t about a purity test – Cynthia Browning’s amendments, if included, would have yielded H.170 completely worthless. She may have couched those amendments in a ‘concern’ for public safety, but all she managed to do was illustrate her total lack of understanding of relevant data from states which have legalized marijuana.
I can’t tell my friends, with a real degree of certainty, that the Dems have their back. The platform might reflect VT youth’s concerns and values, but the legislators do not. And it seems like the Democratic legislators I genuinely trust and believe in are covering for their more conservative colleagues by not forcing votes on these issues.
In the future, I hope the VDP doesn’t support candidates who do not uphold the party’s platform or support legislative priorities for a given session.
All Cynthia Browning has accomplished thus far in 2017 is help to ensure that VT youth have no issues leaving the state behind.
What should especially scare the Dems is this – unlike 49 other states in the nation, the youth you’re rejecting actually have a viable third option.
In other states, Dems can play this game knowing full well they’ll never lose socially-liberal youth. Where are they gonna go, to the GOP?
And in VT, where Bernie Sanders’ Presidential campaign inspired so much action and enthusiasm – you think those kids won’t jump to the Progressive Party? They might not win as many elections, but the Prog Party probably isn’t harboring secretly conservative candidates.
I’m not advocating that this happens, by any means. But I hope people like Jill Krowinski and Mitzi Johnson realize this.
Scott Pavek,
I have no skin in the game as far as legalizing weed is concerned. Don’t use it and don’t care.
My point is the dems and some of the progs continue to disappoint their constituents but they keep being re-elected anyway. Why don’t voters change the players if they really want change?.
If you really believe that weed is the portal to hell, well say so by action or vote. Perhaps this is what Browning thinks, if so she did what she is expected to do. I respect her as a good rep.
I have a bone to pick with the reps and senators who constantly reassure they are going to get something done but find other issues to chase as an excuse for no action on contentious legislation. They seem to march in place. I expect more, even from the trust fund farmers.
No. The working class does not include trust fund farmers. I wouldn’t lump some guy who used Bernie’s popularity to garner the lt. gov. position with the progressives either.
Lade and Philo are spot on on this one. Our privileged white guy from one of Boston’s richest, whitest, suburbs moves to the whitest, happiest state in the nation to play at “organic farmin’ ‘n’ politics.” He prioritizes the freedom to smoke dope above all else. He believes fervently in the science of global warming but is against the science of public health and everything else the conspiratorial Internet, i.e., Jenny McCarthy, tells him to be against. Every third word out of his mouth is “Bernie.” He is a living, breathing, walking self-parody of himself. It’s like watching Portlandia over and over and over and over.
Knowyourassumptions seems to have an obsession with attacking our Lt. Governor. If you looked into the facts, you would realize that the ‘trust funder’ claims are baseless. Zuckerman’s taxes are public. If he was receiving a large amount of money from a trust fund, that would show up in his taxes. What you do see in his taxes is money made from a working farm that employees many Vermonters. Don’t we want to encourage young people to come to our state, start businesses, create jobs, and get involved in the political process?
Zuckerman has been clear that he did receive some money when his father passed away when he was a child. He has said that that money was used to pay for tuition at UVM and allowed him to graduate debt free. He has also acknowledged that he was fortunate to have that opportunity and has supported Bernie’s fight for free college so everyone can have the same opportunity he had. It is a really low blow to go after someone who received money for tuition from the death of a parent as a child.
These attacks are really over the top. Our LG is working hard to address the needs of ordinary Vermonters and promote policies like a $15 minimum wage and legalized marijuana that a majority of us support. It’s fine to disagree on policy, but to personally attack someone like this is really low.
In reciting Zuckerman’s heroic history, you left out the part where he took government money he didn’t earn. Some would call that stealing. That was money belonging to us taxpayers, i.e., the “ordinary Vermonters” he claims to care about.
And, like Dave, you couldn’t get through a comment without mentioning Bernie, eh?
Not according to legislative council, which has thoroughly debunked knowyourassumptions claim. Leg council gave these instructions to legislators in reference to mileage and other expenses.
“Under the law, these amounts are an ‘allowance’ and are due whether or not a member actually spent more or less for meals, rooms, or transportation”
This money was NOT an expense as you claim, but an allowance that all reps were entitled to. Any more alternative facts you want to throw out there knowyourassumptions?
You’re claiming now that it was all perfectly appropriate, and Zuckerman did nothing wrong. The only problem with your position is that it’s not even consistent with what Zuckerman himself said about it when it was happening, back in 2010. Zuckerman admitted at the time that he should have been doing it.
“Every day I claim the mileage, and I probably shouldnt, says Zuckerman”
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/vermont…
He said he shouldn’t have done it. He knew it wasn’t kosher.
Any more spin YOU want to throw out there publicgood?
Knowyourassumptions argues that Zuckerman “took money that he didn’t earn”. Well, legislative council, which wrote the rules on reimbursement for legislators, says that he DID earn the money because it was an allowance, not an expense. Is knowyourassumptions saying that every legislator who followed the rules from legislative council was stealing from taxpayers? Zuckerman’s election opponent admitted in the same article knowyourassumptions referenced that he took the full meal reimbursement even when he did not actually spend that amount on his meals. Was Randy Brock stealing from the taxpayers because he followed the rules that leg council gave him?
The article you reference deals with the argument Zuckerman made at the time that the policy was bad, and should be changed to better reflect the cost of being a legislator. Higher reimbursement would allow more working class folks to run for office. I’m sure that knowyourassumptions would agree that this is a worthy goal, seeing that they are so concerned about wealthy people running for office.
Eventually, the policy around millage was changed, in part due to the fact that our Lt. Governor spoke up.
Zuckerman is the Jill Stein of Vermont.