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!
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?
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.
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.
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?
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..
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?
Does the “working class” include trust funders who hide in Vermont to “farm”?
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.
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.
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.