On March 30, 2018

Legislative report: Who can be against lower taxes?

Jim Harrison
Jim Harrison

By Rep. Jim Harrison, R-Bridgewater, Chittenden, Killington & Mendon

This past week, the Vermont House voted on a proposal to lower residential property taxes for education. Who could be against that? After careful consideration, I voted against H.911 when it came up for preliminary approval.

The legislation does lower the residential property tax rate on average, about 15 cents. It also raises about $60 million with a new income tax surcharge that will now be paid by virtually all Vermonters. To me, it is just a rearranging of deck chairs, without addressing issues related to cost containment. It creates an illusion that we have done something on the property tax front, yet come next January we will all see a new line on the Vermont income tax form for the new income tax surcharge (most will see a rate of 0.5 percent).

It is my understanding Governor Scott opposes the legislation for similar reasons, so unless the Legislature is willing to have a dialog on how to tackle the costs of education and put the brakes on tax increases, H.911 as passed by the House, has little chance of becoming law. I am hopeful we can begin those cost reduction conversations in the balance of the session and end up with a product that gets us on a more sustainable path.

I am pleased to see that the House Education Committee will be looking at various items, like how to best negotiate health care benefits, beginning this week. This was an issue I raised for discussion in the form of an amendment to H.911, but did not offer, following an agreement with the House Education Chair to discuss the issue in committee. It is my hope that we will be able to put politics aside and find that elusive solution that benefits all involved, from our volunteer school boards, to valued employees, teachers and taxpayers.

The House Education Committee also deserves credit for bringing forward a proposal to change the way we fund and deliver special education services in the future. It passed the House unanimously, as most believe there is potential to improve on the results while also doing it more cost effectively.

Gun safety
While legislation concerning firearms won’t be completed for another week or two, one of the more controversial measures, S.55, received preliminary approval last Friday, March 23. As I told some of my legislative colleagues last week, I will probably manage to disappoint all of my district constituents with one vote or another through the course of debate on various components of the bill. As I mentioned at our town meetings, I will support measures that I believe will help reduce gun violence and improve school safety, but I am less likely to favor those measures that are designed, in my view, to score political points without addressing the core issues and infringe on constitutional rights of law-abiding Vermonters.

The 10-hour debate and review of S.55 on Friday saw a number of roll call votes on each major section of the bill. I supported a ban on bump stocks, which is also being proposed by the Justice Department, and increasing the age to 21 for rifles with an exemption for those with hunter safety training, military personnel and law enforcement. I opposed other measures of the bill including background checks for private sales (we already have universal background checks for commercial purchases).

While I am supportive of more background checks, I don’t believe the way S.55 was drafted will work. For example, under S.55, it is perfectly legal to avoid Vermont’s requirement when selling a rifle to a friend, by crossing the river and doing it in a New Hampshire parking lot.

Additionally, an amendment to allow individuals to obtain the necessary background checks at a law enforcement office for a modest $10 was rejected by the committee. Under S.55, a private sale buyer has to find a gun retailer to do the background check for them. Does anyone really think that retailers, like Walmart or Dick’s, will be doing background checks for private sales? Probably not, so the easiest way to sell that rifle to your friend legally, is to visit a N.H. parking lot.

Do you want to submit feedback to the editor?

Send Us An Email!

Related Posts

1,700 pounds of Cabot butter recalled in Vermont and 6 other states for possible fecal contamination

April 16, 2025
By Habib Sabet/VtDigger Cabot Creamery has issued a voluntary recall for nearly a ton of butter due to potential fecal contamination, the brand’s parent company, Agri-Mark Inc., announced April 9. The recall covers 189 cases of the iconic Vermont brand’s 8-oz. Extra Creamy Premium Butter across Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire and…

Moving Day

April 16, 2025
“Moving Day” in the world of golf often refers to Saturday’s third round play at the annual Masters Golf Tournament at Augusta Country Club. This is when top players often move into contention for Sunday’s final round for the championship, just like Rory McIlroy did this past Saturday with an impressive six under par performance.…

IMLS terminates grant for Vermont Historical Society’s local history program

April 16, 2025
The Vermont Historical Society (VHS) announced that the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) terminated its federal funding for the Activating 21st Century Local History Training Program, effective April 8. The decision follows President Donald Trump’s recent executive order to defund several federal agencies, including IMLS. In a letter from acting IMLS director Keith…

Palestinian man legally living in White River Junction was detained during citizenship interview in Vermont

April 16, 2025
By Auditi Guha/VTDigger Masked men in plainclothes detained an Upper Valley resident in Colchester during a scheduled citizenship interview Monday morning, April 14, despite his status as a lawful U.S. permanent resident. Mohsen Mahdawi’s lawyers filed a petition Monday alleging unlawful detention in the U.S. District Court in Vermont. Judge William Sessions III then issued a temporary restraining order saying…