Dilated pupils. Per pupil spending. Both dominanted this week’s edition of “Inside the Golden Bubble.”
In the House, much of the energy focused on softening a law passed last year that penalizes communities for spending too much on education. The flurry was like the end of the session, with proposals being traded and closed-door meetings in the Speaker’s office.
Members of the House Education Committee and the tax-writing Ways and Means tried to figure out a compromise they could reconcile with the Senate, which called for a full repeal of that controversial section of Act 46.
“I find it amusing that people forget every year there is an unusually messy decision-making process called democracy. And it’s all about give and take. And sometimes it just takes a while to get it done,” Smith said as the noontime hour arrived on Friday. House members were still trying to work out how to get the Act 46 compromise through, but Smith was confident the change would happen.
The speaker is also confident the law is working.
“I think Act 46 is doing what we anticipated it would do,” Smith said. “It’s spurring on community conversations that I think are going to lead to better opportunities for kids.”
House Ways and Means Committee chair Janet Ancel said the committee was divided on what to do — throw out all the new spending caps and go back to the restrictions that were in place before or work with the law passed last year. She personally favored throwing out the new caps. She said the old penalty system better caught high-spending towns; the new thresholds, based on increases in spending from the year before, were also snaring lower-spending towns, she said.
“We’ve been trying to do things to keep the pressure on spending for years, as long as I’ve been in here, probably long before I got here It’s not easy because we’re a strong, local control state,” said Ancel, D-Calais.
Outside the House chamber, Rep Heidi Scheuermann was a little stunned looking at a state tax form. She said “income sensitivity” now extends to households with incomes as high as $137,500.
Ancel explained the Legislature made the change last year with the intent to have that benefit decrease gradually, like a slope, instead of ending at a certain income level like a cliff. There’s so little benefit at that high-income level, she said, it may not be even worth applying.
Scheuermann thought it sent a bad message.
Lt. Gov. Phil Scott thinks the state is sending a bad message trying to legalize marijuana. What’s the hurry, he wonders and why not learn from other states that have gone forward first.
“I don’t understand when we have four other states that have passed legalized marijnara in their states why we can just sit back for a bit and watch the both the posiitve and negative effects of what they’ve enacted,” Scott said.
“I know there’re a lot of people concerned about this. Why not watch, wait, listen, see what other states do,” said Scott, noting pot has already been decriminalized.
Scott, who is running for governor, said: “This is a big deal, and if we do the wrong thing, I’m just not sure it serves our citizens best.”
The marijuana bill moved out the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday on a 4-1 vote. Its propects in the full Senate are less certain. Speaker Smith has said he doesn’t think there is enough time to address all the questions before lawmakers adjourn.
“Personally, this a bill that I would find very easy to vote against, a bill that I find difficult to vote for,” said Sen Richard Sears, D-Bennington. He said he felt there is a certain inevitably to legalization and passing a law now could help the state control the industry.
The Senate proposal would fund law enforcement and treatment programs and would not be a big revenue windfall, Sears said. And reaping big profits on the sale of marijuana, he said, was inappropriate.
“I think part of the problem with this bill and with the whole discussion is our state is truly split,” Sears said.
