A To-do List for Legislators 
By Pete Behr 

As the year 2006 wanes, it is time to anticipate the work in store for the Vermont Legislature in 2007. From time to time, we our elected officials sage advice on what is good for our state, focusing on key issues, like the following:

Property Taxes/Education Costs: The number one concern at all political rallies, debates, forums, etc. was property taxes. All candidates acknowledged the problem and promised to do something about it. That was campaign rhetoric. Now comes facing reality. The reality is that Acts 60/68 were ill-conceived, and don’t work. As has been well publicized, education costs and property taxes have increased at rates far greater than inflation, and this despite a substantial decrease in student population. 

All these facts combine to show that the system is broken. It doesn’t work. Costs, and the taxes to support them, are out of control. That is why the Legislature should take the Revolt & Repeal idea seriously. Repeal Acts 60/68 as of 2009, and take the time to craft good legislation. Some Democrats, like Michael Obuchowski, are writing op-ed pieces criticizing R & R, saying its sponsors should propose specific changes. But that is precisely the reason that Acts 60/68 failed -- the original law was written in haste, under the gun of the Supreme Court Brigham decision, and we have been living with its shortcomings ever since. Let’s take the time to do it right. 

Here are some suggestions from Rep. David Sunderland (R-Rutland Town), written in a letter to the Rutland Herald responding to Obuchowski’s piece: "We need to take a sincere and honest look at the cost of public education in Vermont. Regardless of the type of tax used to fund our education system, can we really afford to continue with school budgets that increase at twice the rate of our paychecks? Can we commit to focusing our taxpayer’s dollars on teachers, kids, and classrooms and put the bureaucracy on a budget? Can we commit ourselves to doing everything possible to reduce the administrative costs associated with our public school system? Can we expand the ability of Vermont parents to choose the most appropriate educational setting for their children without paying twice for the privilege?" Good questions, don’t you think? 

Universal Pre-Kindergarten: The movement to bring pre-kindergarten classes for all 3 and 4 year-olds to our public schools is both ill-conceived and ill-timed. During the last session of the Legislature, a bill to authorize the School Fund to pay for universal pre-k failed, and a committee to study its merits was established. While we have not yet seen the conclusions of the committee’s work, testimony has shown that benefits from pre-k accrue primarily to at-risk children, not to the general school population.

In Vermont, at-risk kids are already eligible for pre-k classes, and are benefiting from them. These programs should continue. But consideration of pre-kindergarten for the total school population should be dropped. With the cost of education skyrocketing, we should not add two more grades to our schools, when the benefit is questionable, at best.

Health Care: The last session of the Legislature passed the Catamount Health Plan. Its effectiveness is still being measured. Meanwhile, there is an opportunity to capitalize on the plan’s acknowledgement of personal responsibility. Catamount encourages individuals to practice healthful lifestyles, and legislators should initiate a campaign for all state employees, including elected officials, to join. Perhaps the Department of Health could sponsor the campaign -- they already have a "Healthy Vermont" slogan, and could provide a framework to measure progress in such areas as diet, exercise and weight control, setting goals for the employee population. As our biggest employer, the state needs to lead the way. It would be terrific publicity for Vermont. I hope our legislators take the lead. Dr. Harry Chen, here’s your chance to make a good speech, as you propose the "Healthy Vermont" campaign. 

Cost of Government: We hear a lot about slowing the increase in costs of tax-funded programs, but nothing about reducing the cost of government. The Legislature should establish a commission to define a cost-reduction program. There would be no reduction in services or layoffs of personnel, but there would be emphasis on doing things "faster, better, cheaper." Departments and agencies can be simplified or consolidated, inter-agency squabbles eliminated, responsibilities clarified. Suggestions from employees would be encouraged. There is no downside. Just do it! 

– Pete Behr writes a regular column for the Vermont Standard