Wilton For Senate
Candidate Opinions
Wilton
Gains Support from Key Organizations Rutland, VT—State Senator Wendy Wilton has received endorsements from several organizations representing consumers or those that support a traditional Vermont lifestyle. Among her endorsements are: The Association of Vermont Credit Unions, Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Northern Vermont, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and the National Rifle Association. Wilton received recognition in 2005 for her efforts in supporting traditional Vermont agriculture with the Women in Agricultural Leadership Award from the Vermont Farm Bureau, and recognition from Vermonters Against Child Sexual Abuse in 2006 for her bi-partisan effort to secure minimum, mandatory sentences for sex offenders convicted of aggravated sexual assault. Wilton is concerned about the continued loss of Vermont’s working landscape and is critical of the congressional action that proposed increasing the acreage of wilderness beyond the US Forest Service recommendation. She says “Our working landscape is part of our Vermont heritage. Many Vermonters do not understand that a wilderness designation will result in the loss of working land for lumber, potential farming and recreational use.” Concerns
about Catamount Health Note: The final version of the Healthcare bill did contain a cap provision to restrict migration and allow the Commissioner of BISHCA authority over the process, and the Governor did sign the bill with these provisions. My concerns about the “richness” of the program and migration from private insurance remain, although reduced through these changes. Higher reimbursements for Vermont hospitals, an attempt to curtail the cost shift, and special emphasis on chronic care make the “Catamount Health” proposal, H.861, a step in the right direction in many ways. There was a lot to like in the bill, yet, I voted against it. I voted against the bill because the Senate would not back up the proposal by agreeing to cap the cost, despite evidence that it is fiscally unsustainable. The projected expenditures for the plan outstrip revenues within three years of inception. The revenues supporting the plan are reliant on tobacco taxes, a dwindling source of revenue, which spells further trouble for sustainability. And that means more new taxes. This proposal is contrary to the goal of making Vermont affordable. No matter how the House
and Senate may change the bill in conference committee, if the underlying
assumptions used in developing the proposal will not be altered,
it will remain fiscally irresponsible as it arrives on the Governor’s
desk. Coverage under Catamount Health includes care goes beyond a “basic” preventive and catastrophic policy and exceeds the type of plan most small businesses currently offer to their employees. The plan is estimated to price out at $350 monthly per individual with state subsidies for those below 300% of poverty level ($60,000 per year for a family of four). There is no lower cost option at this time in the proposal. Thus, employers are likely to find ways to eliminate insurance coverage for their employees and encourage enrollment in Catamount Health. Catamount Health will reimburse providers at a lower rate than private insurance—hence the cost shift will become worse for those who remain in the private insurance market if too many Vermonters convert to the new plan. Companies that seek to do the “right thing” and stay with their current plan are likely to be at a disadvantage with healthcare benefits compared to firms that do not provide insurance for their employees. A stampede in the making. The states of New York and Minnesota offered basic health plans for small business and the uninsured. The plans are limited, and thus affordable. Healthy New York does not include chiropractic care or mental health coverage; MinnCare has caps for hospital in-patient and out-patient stays. Thus, these states found a balance between offering a basic, affordable plan, to help reduce the cost shift burden, while maintaining a robust private health insurance market. Maintaining a healthy private insurance market is critical to the entire health care system since it is private insurance that supports the majority of the cost. Despite its flaws, the current system of private insurance allows for flexibility based on consumer choices and encourages efficiencies--which we risk losing if we erode the private market. Health coverage of the future may come down to three options: large company or government employment, Medicaid or Catamount Health. We should actually be seeking to allow more consumer choices in insurance, rather than fewer. The second flawed assumption in the proposal identifies the growth in the cost of healthcare over the next few years as 4.5%. Vermont hospitals have experienced a 6.3% rate of cost increases, health insurance has increased about 8.0% annually in recent years, and Medicare spending is anticipated to fall between 5.9 and 7.6% per year over the next ten years. The number of 4.5% comes from the Congressional Budget Office anticipated cost increases for Medicare reimbursement, which seems to indicate the Feds will work to lower Medicare reimbursements in the future. Catamount Health may do the same if new revenues are not found to make up for costs exceeding the 4.5% threshold. The cost shift will resume. Proponents of the bill will argue that caps exist to prevent runaway state expenditures. It is the responsibility of the Health Access Oversight Committee of the legislature to impose the cap, rather than a fiscal oversight committee of the legislature. Interestingly, the majority of the members of the Heath Access Oversight Committee are on record supporting last year’s health care proposal which was vetoed by the Governor. If this committee fails to respond to the cap request by the administration there is no recourse and meantime enrollment outstripping revenues can continue unabated. Further, it suggests that those who act first to convert to the new plan will get in before a cap to enrollment may be imposed—a bit like a blue light sale at Kmart rather than a thoughtful, orderly way to implement the program. A true cap—a “hard” cap—is needed to make this proposal fiscally responsible. A more modest version of the Catamount Health plan would reduce migration, and limit the cost of the plan. A hard cap on the cost of the plan—even at the $350 per month for the existing proposal--would also serve to limit migration in the future, and help the state hold the line on costs in the negotiation of the administration and coverage. When an amendment was presented to the Senate to limit the monthly expense to the $350 per month, it was soundly defeated, even though Dr. Thorpe agreed the pricing was consistent with his assumptions in the proposal and reasonable in light of the generous plan that was proposed. One has to wonder, if the proponents of the bill aren’t willing to stand by their proposal, including its key assumptions and pricing, how much this plan will cost Vermonters in the long run? Vermont is already one of the highest per capita tax states, despite our relatively lower incomes. Yet, Vermont ranks in the top ten for many measures of health in our population among the states. The risk of this plan outweighs the downside. Catamount Health represents one more assault on taxpayers, and especially small businesses. It will also jeopardize the fiscal health of the state and our ability to fund Medicaid, which covers our most vulnerable, if it fails. Sen. Wendy Wilton Protecting
Vermonters’ Property Rights The Vermont Senate recently passed a bill, S.246, pertaining to Eminent Domain. The bill was sponsored by a bi-partisan group, in response to citizen’s concerns after the US Supreme Court decision in the Kelo case. As supporters of property rights, we strongly supported this proposed piece of legislation. Surprisingly, a recent letter to the Editor criticized both of us for supporting the bill, while failing to support an amendment which we viewed as limiting for Vermont communities. Our Vermont Constitution gives property owners better protections than may be found in other states, based on a requirement of necessity for public use. Yet the Senate felt the bill was still important to define and limit uses for eminent domain to transportation, public utilities, public property (parks, government buildings), water, wastewater or waste disposal, and urban renewal. Concerns were raised about the use of urban renewal statutes as a ‘backdoor” method to take property for economic development projects. Vermont League of Cities and Towns testified that there were very few instances of the use of urban renewal in the state, the most recent uses cited being Winooski and Burlington in the 1960’s. Still, this concern was taken very seriously. John McClaughry, of the Ethan Allen Institute, suggested a change in the definition of blight in the urban renewal statutes to better protect property rights, in this regard. He suggested amending the definition of blight in the Vermont urban renewal statute to eliminate the possibility of determining blight solely for the purpose of increasing tax value, and instructing the courts who may hear appeals from the same. The committee took his suggestion very seriously and added this language to the bill. This is the version that was passed. The other option for
the Senate would have been to eliminate the use of eminent domain
for urban renewal uses or the removal of the urban renewal statutes,
altogether. The process for urban renewal involves approval by the voters and a lengthy public process in order to be utilized. This process for urban renewal, combined with Act 250 requirements and local zoning ordinances, provides significant protections for Vermont property owners in addition to the protections in our constitution. We believe that the bill as amended with the “McClaughry” language is sufficient for the purpose of preventing a Kelo case in Vermont, without removing the use of an existing statute that may be needed in the future.
Cashman’s
resignation is the right solution I have made recent appearances on national cable and statewide news programs regarding the Cashman decision in the Hulett case as a sponsor of “Jessica’s Law” for Vermont, S.283. The bill proposes minimum, mandatory sentences for sex offenders whose victims are children. Senator George Coppenrath (R-Caledonia), and I have been working on this bill since July in response to concerns from our constituents. Our own observations from recent news articles in the press seem to confirm that some sex offenses perpetrated on young Vermonters did not result in significant sentences with respect to the severity of the conviction. At the time we began our research, we were unaware of the Hulett case. Senators Doyle (R-Washington), Giard (D-Addison), Maynard (R-Rutland), Mullin (R-Rutland), Shepard (R-Bennington) and Starr (D-Essex-Orleans) have signed onto this bill, illustrating bi-partisan support for the concept. A companion bill has been introduced in the House by Rep. Tom Depoy (R-Rutland City). I serve on Senate Judiciary Committee and we have worked on several issues this fall to prepare for this session. In one of those meetings, Department of Public Safety Commissioner Kerry Sleeper shared with us his rationale for proposing the expansion of the on-line sex offender directory to include all Vermont registered sex offenders. He shared his concerns that while violent crime is down in Vermont (and nationwide) sex offenses were up sharply, 50% of the sexual assault victims were under 18 years of age, and the age gap between the victim and the offender has widened. I met with several legislators from other states this fall at a conference and their experience with sex offenses on the rise is the same. Sen. John Rafferty, Chairman of the Public Safety Committee of the Pennsylvania Senate, is co-sponsoring a Jessica’s Law in his state as a result of the same trends and concern. Some editorialists have expressed that I am inventing a crisis. I disagree. The crisis is already here; it’s a matter of awareness. The Chairman of Senate Judiciary, Dick Sears (D-Bennington) has understood the concern about these issues. Our committee has placed a discussion of minimum and mandatory sentences on our priority list, along with the sex offender registry and other related topics. Again, it is important to note that these topics and priorities were established before the Hulett case became news. However, the Cashman decision certainly makes clear the need to act on these priorities. I have been an outspoken critic of Judge Cashman’s sentencing in the Hulett case, and I make no apology for that. Mine is not a partisan view--I simply do not feel he is doing his job as a judge, and I believe most Vermonters agree. Judge Cashman stated he no longer believes punishment works. However, Vermont statutes provide for significant incarceration for aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault, especially when the victim is a child. Is incarceration retribution as some defense attorneys have parroted for Cashman? Or is it restitution to the victim and society? I think most Vermonters believe the latter to be true. The victim gets no money for treatment, no guarantee she will ever lead a normal life. What else is there for her, unless society values her life enough to remove the offender from any possible contact with her, or another victim, for a definite and significant, period of time? Was there a problem with Department of Corrections policy or implementation of treatment in certain cases? It appears so. However a person such as Judge Cashman could have brought this problem to the attention of the administration and the legislature individually, or through the Judiciary, to help correct the problem in a constructive way, long before this case was before him. Unfortunately, Judge Cashman illustrated bad judgment by using this case to make his point. The Agency of Human Services has offered to treat Hulett if the Judge reconsiders his sentence. Were the Judge to accept this offer, it would be a dignified way to end the controversy. If Cashman will not reconsider his sentence, or the State’s Attorney is not successful in appealing the sentence, then resignation would be the next best thing to avoid a circus in the Legislature. Continued pressure from the public, on the Legislature and other branches of government, is critical if the public feels incarceration is an important aspect of sentencing for these serious crimes. Sen. Wendy Wilton Taxpayer
Funded Pre-school Needs Attention During the summer and early fall, letters and commentaries have appeared in Vermont’s newspapers regarding the events of this past legislative session pertaining to taxpayer funded preschool in Vermont. As best I can, I'll summarize the sequence of events in a simple - and I hope, clear - fashion and then offer some solutions to the problems we now face: In the past few years some Vermont public schools have set up their own preschool programs using money from the Education Fund. Some of these programs have been targeted solely at kids who fall into low-income or special needs categories. Some, however, have been "universal" - for rich and poor alike, even if the parents could afford to pay. Some have been collaborative efforts between childcare providers and the school, and some are exclusively school based. In recent years, the Vermont Department of Education has been encouraging more schools to get into the universal preschool business, not just providing preschool for special needs and at-risk kids. They've given schools the green light to draw down the Education Fund for this purpose based on the Department's belief that statutes and regulations allow for the use of the money in this way. However, it was not clear if the legal authority existed for this decision. In the meantime, the Senate Education Committee began considering a taxpayer funded preschool bill last year and again this year. I sit on that committee and listened to testimony and read through the often-excellent papers of critics and supporters alike. My concerns about taxpayer funded preschool fall into three categories: its impact on kids who need help, its impact on taxpayers, and its impact on private preschool providers and childcare providers. I made my concerns clear during our committee meetings and was disappointed and surprised when I discovered that an early education funding formula had been placed in the budget bill at the last minute. In a last-ditch effort to at least protect private providers, I offered an amendment to the budget bill that encourages public schools to work with private providers. Unfortunately, mere encouragement isn't enough to ensure that we maintain numerous and diverse childcare opportunities for children. I recently met a childcare provider who is closing her business because, in her words, "she can't compete with free." Her local public school opened a "free" taxpayer funded preschool last fall, in addition to after school care. I don't want to see this scenario repeated throughout the state. It's time to roll up our sleeves and fix this problem. I'm willing to do this and hope my colleagues will make the effort as well. Here's what we need to consider: Taxpayer funded preschool
should serve those who need services the most. Taxpayer funded preschool
should not overburden the taxpayer How much more can Vermont taxpayers take, especially older Vermonters trying to stay in their homes? Taxpayer funded preschool
should not compete unfairly with private providers. And there’s another major concern for children, parents and employers: There is currently a shortage of childcare capacity in Vermont—waiting lists are the norm for infant care. What will happen when providers begin to close due to pressure from taxpayer funded preschool programs? We owe it to our kids, our taxpayers, and our private childcare providers to get this right. At the end of the last legislative session, some of my colleagues rushed preschool funding language into the budget bill. It’s up to childcare providers, parents and taxpayers to put pressure on my legislative colleagues to join me in fixing the problems created by that rash move, next session.
|
© Copyright 2004. All rights reserved. Contact: WiltonForSenate