Just saying ‘no’ is not an effective or affordable agenda

By Angelo Lynn

Editor’s note: Angelo Lynn is the editor and publisher of the Addison Independent, a sister paper of the Mountain Times. 

In a written statement released the opening day of the 2025 legislative session and a day ahead of his fifth inaugural address, Gov. Phil Scott encouraged Vermont residents to watchdog the Legislature for excessive spending. 

“It’s more important than ever,” he wrote, “that Vermonters pay attention to what’s going on in the Statehouse this session. It’s no secret, over the past two years, we’ve had our share of disagreements with the Legislature, particularly over new taxes and fees, including a property tax increase, that’s making it harder for Vermonters to make ends meet.”

We agree with the governor that the public should pay close attention, but for very different reasons.

Throughout his previous four terms, Scott has successfully tagged the Democratic legislative majority with the state’s rising cost of living. His political strategy has been to propose almost no solutions, but rather act as a counter to Democrats’ legislative action. As the “brake” on Democrats’ spending, he’s been able to tout an effective slogan — “Keeping Vermont affordable.”

It has been an effective political strategy because it’s simple for the public to understand. But it’s also kept Vermont from addressing key problems like affordable housing, affordable health care, an affordable education system, and providing an adequate labor pool to meet demand. As he enters his fifth term in office, his do-nothing strategy has arguably left Vermont in worse shape on those four key issues than when he took office. 

In paying attention to what’s going on in Montpelier, citizens should ask what Scott’s administration is doing to solve any of those problems.

Two recent Legislative initiatives prove Scott’s approach is wrong, and that proactive legislation can be effective.

1) When the Legislature passed Act 76, the 2023 Child Care Bill, finding access to childcare had been a major concern for Vermont families for the previous decade. The annual tab for care was over $15,000 per child with scant subsidies for most families. Middle-income families got no support and consequently were leaving the state because childcare was almost impossible to find, and if available it was prohibitively expensive.

In essence, the bill did two things: It created higher pay for childcare workers, which increased the number of childcare providers, and it expanded those who qualified for subsidies. Within a year more than 1,000 childcare slots opened, more are being created to meet demand, and more young families can afford childcare today. How did this happen? Democrats worked with childcare providers to understand the problem, researched what other states were doing, proposed a solution and got it passed. For his part, Gov. Scott and his administration played no role in developing the legislation, but did veto the bill saying simply that any taxes made Vermont less affordable. Democrats were able to override that veto. Fortunately.

For thousands of young Vermont families — the very demographic the state is desperate to attract and hold — childcare is now affordable and no longer the crisis it once was.

2) Earlier this week, Vermont Treasurer Mike Pieciak reported the state’s key pension programs were not only solvent but hit a decade highpoint. That’s a big change since 2020, when the state’s pension programs were tanking and threatening the life savings of many teachers, highway patrol offices and state employees.

What changed? Two years ago, the Democratic Legislature researched, drafted and passed Act 114. The law required teachers’ unions and state employees to agree to lower cost-of-living adjustments and higher employee contributions. In exchange, lawmakers promised a $200 million lump-sum payment (which the state was legally obligated to pay) and agreed to pre-fund retiree health benefits.

With the compromise, the fund is now on track to be paid off on time. That’s important because it improves the state’s bond rating that has deteriorated under Scott’s tenure. In 2018, two years after Scott was elected, Moody’s dropped the state’s longstanding triple-A rating down to its lower AA1 rating, citing “slower-than-average economic growth, demographics and pension obligations.” Fitch lowered its ratings in 2019, and in 2020, S&P affirmed the state’s AA-plus rating but revised the state’s outlook from “stable to negative.”

Since Act 114 went into effect, all three firms have signaled that the policy changes have put the state back on the right track. In an October 2024 report, S&P wrote: “Our view of the state’s risk management for pension governance has improved… [and is now] on a more sustainable long-term cost trajectory.”

Gov. Scott also vetoed Act 114, saying the immediate cost was too high while ignoring any positive outcome. Again, his veto was over-ridden by the Democratic majority.

These two examples illustrate an important lesson: Just saying no to expenses is not always an effective plan, and it’s not necessarily “more affordable” either. On the contrary, having no active plan — and countering those who do — is a recipe for allowing state problems to become the crises they are today.