Quantcast

YCQM: April 27, 2014 - WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

YCQM: April 27, 2014

Posted: Updated:
BURLINGTON, Vt. -

You Can Quote Me: April 27, 2014. Rep. Don Turner, R-Milton, joins Darren Perron and Kyle Midura to discuss issues the 2014 Legislature faces.

TRANSCRIPT:

>>> AND GOOD MORNING.

OUR NEWSMAKER IS HOUSE

MINORITY LEADER DON TURNER.

THANKS FOR JOINING US.

JOINING THE CONVERSATION IS

KYLE MIDURA.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER, THE

HOUSE SIGNED UP ON THE

SENATE MADE TO A BILL, GMO

BILL.

IT'S POISED TO MAKE THE

FIRST IN THE NATION TO

REQUIRE LABELING OF SUCH

PRODUCTS IN STORES.

GOVERNORS ARE POISED TO SIGN

IT.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> IT'S KNOWING WHAT IS IN

OUR FOOD AND OUR MEMBERS

AGREE WITH THAT BUT THE

FIRST IS NOT ALWAYS THE BEST.

THE BILL THAT PASSED THE

HOUSE HAD DRUGERS IN IT THAT

WOULD PREVENT OR SUBJECT

VERMONT FOR A LARGE LAWSUIT.

MANY OF MY MEMBERS MAYBE WE

COULDN'T SUPPORT TO THAT TO

BE A $5-10 MILLION

LIABILITY.

SO MANY DID NOT SUPPORT THE

BILL.

>> WE SPOKE TO THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL IN REGARDS TO THIS

GMO LABELING BILL THAT IS

LIKELY TO BECOME LAW.

THEY SAY IT'S PRETTY LIKELY

WE'RE GOING TO SEE A COSTLY

LAWSUIT OUT OF THIS FROM THE

LARGE COMPANIES THAT MAKE

THE GMO SEEDS.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO SUPPORT

THIS?

IS THIS JUST TOO MANY FOR

VERMONT TO TAKE ON?

>> I THINK IT'S TOO MUCH.

IT'S NOT SPENDING MY OWN

MONEY.

WE ARE SPENDING TAXPAYER'S

MONEY TO DO THESE TYPES OF

THINGS.

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS

WHERE WE COULD HAVE TAKEN A

DIFFERENT APPROACH AND NOT

SUBJECT VERMONT TAXPAYERS TO

$5-10 MILLION IN LEGAL FEES.

WE'RE CONCERNED THAT THE

CAUCUS THIS IS NOT

AFFORDABLE ANYMORE.

IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE

ANYMORE.

THIS IS ONE MORE LIABILITY,

ONE MORE BURDEN THAT VERMONT

TAXPAYERS ARE GOING TO BE

FACED WITH.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS

AND OTHERS SAY WE'RE LIKELY

TO FACE A LAWSUIT.

>> AS POLITICIANS COULD

ANYONE WISH TO NOT PUSH IT

THROUGH THIS YEAR GIVING THE

PUBLIC SENTIMENT WE'VE SEEN

IN POLLS?

>> I COULDN'T SUPPORT IT.

MY CONSTITUENTS UNDERSTAND

WHEN I'M ELECTED I HAVE TO

REPRESENT THE BROAD VIEW.

PEOPLE ARE VERY PASSIONATE

ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

WE'RE FACING LOTS OF

LIABILITY IN THE STATE.

COST OF LIVING IS GOING

THROUGH THE ROOF.

THIS IS ONE MORE BURDEN.

WHEN I SEE IT'S GOING OUT TO

THE PEOPLE THAT WANT THIS TO

PASS, I COULDN'T SUPPORTED

IT.

>>> THE OPPONENTS OF THIS

MEASURE ARE SAYING WE SHOULD

KNOW WHAT IS IN OUR FOOD

WHEN WE ARE EATING IT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH IT.

YOU CAN FIND OUT WHAT IS IN

YOUR FOOD.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY

CERTAIN PRODUCTS.

SO IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT

IS IN A CERTAIN PRODUCT, I

SUBJECT SUGGEST THAT

CONSUMER DO RESEARCH AND

FIND OUT WHAT?

THOSE PRODUCTS.

A 15% THAT IS ORGANIC, IT

DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO

KNOW, YOU HAVE RIGHT TO DO

THE RESEARCH BUT I DON'T

THINK THE STATE OF VERMONT'S

TASK TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY

PRODUCT COMES INTO THE STATE

HAS LABELING ON IT.

>>> THE AG MENTIONED HE

THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE

PLENTY OF MONEY GIVEN THE

AMOUNT WHEN THE STATE SUES

THESE LARGE CORPORATIONS --

FILL IN THE BLANK -- THERE

IS A LOT OF MONEY THAT CAN

BE USED FOR THIS LAWSUIT.

THERE HAS BEEN SOMETHING

THAT HAS CREATED THAT

ANYBODY CAN CONTRIBUTE TO

VERMONT TO HELP THEM THROUGH

THE LEGAL PROCESS.

HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

>> I THINK I RESPOND BY

LOOKING AT THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL'S HISTORICAL RECORD

OF THE LAWSUITS.

I CAN REMEMBER IN PAST

BUDGET YEARS HE HAD THE

BUDGET $3-5 MILLION TO

SETTLE SOME OF THESE THESE

CASES.

I HEAR WHAT THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL IS SAYING, IT COMES

IN ON A REGULAR BASIS AND

THERE A REVENUE STREAM BUT I

DISAGREE WITH THIS, WE

SHOULDN'T BE WASTING

TAXPAYER'S MONEY LIKE THIS.

AND DONATIONS TO HELP DEFEND

A LAWSUIT.

>> ON THIS ISSUE, OTHER

STATES HAVE KEPT THE

TRIGGERS IN THEIR BILLS

WHERE THEY SAY ONCE A

CERTAIN AMOUNT OF -- THE

TOTAL POPULATION OF ABOUT 20

MILLION SIGN ON WITH SIMILAR

BILLS, THIS LAW WOULD BE

ACTIVE IN 2016 AS IT IS

CURRENTLY WRITTEN AS THE

GOVERNOR IS LIKELY TO DEFEND

IT.

DO WE HOPE THAT OTHER STATES

FOLLOW SUIT SO WE ARE NOT

ENGAGED IN A LAWSUIT SOLO.

>> I HOPE THAT OTHER STATES

COME ON BOARD.

I HOPE THERE ARE OTHER

PARTNERS AND DEFEND THIS.

>> ANOTHER MEASURE WE'RE

LOOKING AT OTHER STATES IS

THE MINIMUM WAGE.

CONNECTICUT HAS AGREED TO

REACH BY 2017 WITH SOMETHING

AND THE HOUSE VOTED LET'S

KEEP 10.10 BY NEXT YEAR.

SENATE IS LOOKING AT A

DIFFERENT PLAN.

QUOTE STILL BE SUBJECT TO

CHANGE.

IT WOULD HIT 20.50 BY 2015.

WILL THIS BE THE GOVERNOR'S

PLAN?

>> I MENTIONED EARLIER THE

COST IN VERMONT.

THE COST OF LIVING IS HIGH

BUT THE COST OF LIVING DOING

BUSINESS IN VERMONT IS

GETTING HIGHER AND HIGHER,

TOO.

MOSTLY THE BUSINESS IS SMALL

BUSINESS.

MINIMUM WAGE IS THERE FOR A

REASON.

WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT IT

NEEDS TO INCREASE.

IT'S POPULAR TO INCREASE THE

MINIMUM WAGE.

WHAT WE LOOKED AT.

WE TRIED TO RESTRICT THE

ADEQUATE BALANCE AND

PREDICTABILITY FOR THE

BUSINESSES.

THE GOVERNOR'S PLAN THAT

REACHES A TIME FOR THE

BUSINESSES TO ABSORB THAT,

THEY CAN PLAN AND

PREDICTABILITY AND PLANNING

GO HAND IN HAND.

SO WE MADE A DECISION TO

OFFER THE GOVERNOR'S

DECISION, BROUGHT IT ON

BEHALF OF THE CAUCUS.

IT WAS A BIPARTISAN

AMENDMENT.

THEY WERE SHOT DOWN.

WE'RE HOPEFUL WILL THAT THE

SENATE'S PROPOSAL WHICH IS

10.50 OVER FOUR YEARS, IT

COMES BACK TO THE GOVERNOR'S

DESK.

THEN THEY CAN STRIKE THE

BALANCE INCREASING THE

MINIMUM WAGE AND PREDICTED

BUILT AND STABILITY FOR

BUSINESS IN GOING FORWARD.

>>> THAT BEING SAID, IT WAS

MUCH CLOSER VOTE, DEMOCRATS

VERSUS REPUBLICANS?

>> WE STRATEGICALLY REACHED

OUT TO MORE MODERATE

DEMOCRATS IN THAT CASE TO

SEE IF WE COULD PULL IN

VOTES.

WE WENT TO THE GOVERNOR, WE

HOPE YOU STAND BEHIND IT AND

MOVE FORWARD.

>> YOU HAVE MENTIONED JUST

BEFORE WE STARTED THE

BROADCAST THAT ONE OF THE

BIG CONCERNS WITH THIS

MINIMUM WAGE HIKE ARE WHAT

HAS HIT WAGE EARNERS.

THEY ARE SET TO SEE A BIG

BUMP IN THEIR WAY.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THIS BILL, NOT BEEN FRONT OF

THE NEWSCAST BUT IT PUTS A

SUBSTANTIAL IN PLACE FOR

TIPPED EMPLOYEES.

THAT IS BIG CONCERN.

OUR ECONOMY IS REALLY MOVING

IN A DIRECTION FOR SERVICE

TYPE EMPLOYEES.

IT PUTS A BURDEN ON THAT

TYPE OF INDUSTRY,

RESTAURANTS, HOTELS, AND

OTHERS ARE GOING TO SUFFER

FROM THAT.

I THINK YOU WILL SEE

DIFFERENT THINGS AND I THINK

THE TIPPED EMPLOYEES ARE THE

ONES THAT WERE PUSHING FOR

THIS.

MOST OF THE PEOPLE I TALKED

TO, THEY DO VERY WELL ON A

TIP BASIS.

I THINK -- I'M NOT SURE

WHERE IT IS COMING FROM.

IT RAISES A CONCERN AND

CONCERN ABOUT THE BUSINESS

COMMUNITY IN THIS AREA.

>> WE'VE HEARD THIS WEEK

THROUGH THE GOVERNOR'S

OFFICE THAT VERMONT'S

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS THE

SECOND LOWEST IN THE NATION

WITH ONE OF THE DAKOTAS

AHEAD OF US.

I BELIEVE IT'S IN 3%.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A HEALTHY

ECONOMY.

>> I DON'T BUY INTO THAT.

I TALK TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE

ALL OVER THE STATE.

WE'VE LOST A NUMBER OF

EMPLOYEES AT IBM.

WE MAY BE BRINGING IN

SERVICE JOBS BUT THE JOBS

THAT PAY $20-25 AN HOUR THEY

ARE LEAVING THE STATE.

WE HAVE SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY

ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE AND

TAXES AND SO ON.

THESE PEOPLE MAKING BUSINESS

DECISIONS, THEY MAKE

DECISIONS FOR TEN YEARS OUT.

THEY CAN'T PREDICT WHAT IS

GOING TO HAPPEN WITH

UNCERTAINTY.

WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF THAT.

WHEN IT IT COMES TO THE

GOVERNOR TOUTING LOW

UNEMPLOYMENT.

IT DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE

STORY.

I THINK THERE IS A LOT MORE

TO THE STORY, THE ECONOMY

HAS NOT COME BACK LIKE SOME

WOULD LIKE TO PROJECT IT IS.

WE HAVE NOT IN THE

LEGISLATIVE SESSION DONE

ANYTHING FOR ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT.

FOCUS IN TIME AND ENERGY ON

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

IF SOME OF OUR PLOX WOULD GO

AWAY AND THE ECONOMY WAS

GROWING AT A REASONABLE

RATED AND CLEARLY JOBS

PAYING PEOPLE WELL AND HAVE

THE LOWER COSTS WITH SOME OF

THE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS AND

THINGS LIKE, THAT WE HAVE

REALLY TRIED TO PUT A FOCUS

ON THE FACT THIS ENTIRE

SESSION IS NOT TALKED ABOUT

ECONOMIC OR GROWING ECONOMIC

OPPORTUNITY UNTIL THE LAST

WEEK.

>> WHAT KIND OF MEASURES

COULD DO THAT?

AS FAR AS PROPERTY TAXES ARE

CONCERNED IT STRIPS OUT THE

R&D TAX CREDIT?

>> THAT IS THE WRONG

DIRECTION.

MY CAUCUS, TAX CREDITS, THE

OTHER THAT IS R&D IS HARM

TITLE IS THE DISCLOSURE

PIECE.

THEY WANTED TO DISCLOSE

PEOPLE THAT WERE WORKING ON

R&D TAX CREDITS.

SO WE ARE VERY CONCERNED

THINGS LIKE THAT WILL HURT

BUSINESS.

THAT IS THE OVERHAUL OVERALL

SENTIMENT.

WE FORGET IT'S THE STATE'S

ECONOMY AND SMALL BUSINESSES

WE NEED TO FOCUS ON PRO

BUSINESS WHICH WILL GROW THE

ECONOMY AND LESSEN THE

BURDEN ON SOME OF THE

PROGRAMS AND PUT US IN A

BETTER FINANCIAL POSITION

GOING FORWARD.

>> WHAT ARE SOME OF THE

THINGS WE CAN DO?

>> SOME OF THE THINGS THAT

WE CAN DO, PEOPLE THINK BIG

BUSINESS IS BAD.

THERE ARE MANY THINGS WE CAN

DO.

WE PAST A BILL FOR AGENCY

FEES.

THAT IS AFFECTS THE LOWEST

INCOME EARNERS.

THAT PASSED LAST SESSION AND

IS ANTI-BIG.

WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT

SOME OF THE PROPOSALS ON THE

TABLE FOR -- THERE IS NO WAY.

>> UPSTATE NEW YORK IS THE

NEW TERRITORY FOR STARTING

BUSINESS WITH NEW TAX

INCENTIVES.

HOW DO WE COMPETE?

>> YOU CAN'T COMPETED WITH

THAT TYPE OF STUFF.

VERMONT IS A GOOD PLAYING TO

DO BIG BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING

IS, THE HEALTHCARE BEING SO

UNCERTAIN WHAT IS GOING TO

HAPPEN.

THE GOVERNOR REFUSES TO TALK

ABOUT WHO IS GOING PAY AND

HOW MUCH IT IS GOING TO COST.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU

ARE GOING TO PAY FOR TWO

YEARS, WE HAVE TO BRING

STABILITY WHAT WE ARE DOING.

YOU HAVE TO TAKE AND LOOK AT

THE PROPERTY TAX AND

NON-RESIDENTIAL BUT WE'RE

GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT.

WE'RE GOING TO RAISE IT.

IT'S PROJECTED TO GO FIVE

CENTS AGAIN NEXT YEAR SO IF

I CAN GO TO A PLACE LIKE

NEW YORK OR COMING TO

VERMONT WITH 20% INCREASE IN

PROPERTY TAXES, 17 PERCENT

FOR HEALTHCARE, WHY WOULD I

PICK VERMONT?

THOSE ARE PROGRAMS NOT TO

ENHANCE BUSINESS.

>> 20% INCREASE NEXT YEAR?

>> TOTAL.

CUMULATIVE.

>> LAST YEAR WAS FIVE, THIS

YEAR IS 8 AND NEXT YEAR WILL

BE FIVE AND THE YEAR AFTER

THAT IS FIVE ON

NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

I HOPE SO.

I THINK ITS PRETTY

CONSERVATIVE COMMUNITY AND

CAUCUS MEMBERS, THEY ARE

VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IS

GOING ON.

IT'S THE SOLE THING ABOUT

THE GOVERNOR TALKS ABOUT

SCHOOL DISTRICTS, HOLD YOUR

LINE AT 2%.

HE PUTS A BUDGET THAT IS

OVER 5%.

$52 MILLION, $213 MILLION IN

SPENDING.

IS THAT SUSTAINABLE?

NO.

YOU WANT SCHOOLS TO DO ONE

THING AND YOU WANT STATE

GOVERNMENT TO GROW AND

GROW -- IT DOESN'T WORK.

SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THE

STATE LEVEL IN THE BUDGET

GOVERNMENT GROWING, WE'RE

RELYING ON LAWSUIT AND YOU

GOT MONEY -- BUT NEXT YEAR

THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK AT

$70 MILLION BUMP AND THEN

THE YEAR AFTER THAT IT'S

EVEN BIGGER.

WE GOT TO DO SOMETHING TO

GET THE STATE SPENDING UNDER

CONTROL.

THE GOVERNOR IS USING ONE

TIME MONEY DEPENDING MORE

AND MORE ON FEDERAL DOLLARS,

LIMITING AND USING OTHER

RESERVES.

WHEN YOU START USING UP YOUR

RESERVES YOU PUT THE STATE

IN A WORSE POSITION.

I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT

THAT.

WE RAISE THOSE ISSUES.

I THINK PEOPLE ARE HEARING

IT.

I THINK THEY SEE IT WHAT

THEY ARE PAYING FOR PROPERTY

TAXES AND UTILITY BILLS AND

FOOD, SERVICING COSTING

MORE.

>> VERMONTERS MAY BE

LISTENING BUT ARE FELLOW

LAWMAKERS LISTENING?

>> NOT YET.

UNFORTUNATELY NO.

THE BUDGET PASSED THIS YEAR

WAS MORE THAN THE STATE

COULD SPEND.

IT WASN'T THAT THE GOVERNOR

PROPOSED BUT NOT ENOUGH TO

MAKE INCIDENTS GOING

FORWARD.

LUKE I SAID, WE COME FROM A

CYCLE OF SPEND, SPEND, SPEND.

LET'S PUT A BURDEN ON A

BUSINESS TO REALLY FOCUS ON

THOSE THINGS GOING FORWARD,

MY CAUCUS I GIVE THEM CREDIT

ON THE BUDGE THAT CAME OUT

OF THE HOUSE, THE CHAIR OF

THE TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED

THE BUDGET BUT THE REST OF

MY CAUCUS VOTED NO.

WE CAN'T AFFORD TO SPEND AT

LEVELS THEY ARE SPENDING AT.

THERE IS NO WAY TO SUSTAIN

THE KIND OF SPENDING THEY

ARE DOING.

THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF

PROPOSALS THAT CUT DOWN ON

EDUCATION BUT IT APPEARS

THEY MAY NOT BE GOING

ANYWHERE.

>> KYLE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT

EDUCATION WE HAVE A RECEIVE

A SHERMAN AND ACT 68

PETITION.

IT WAS OVER A THOUSAND

PEOPLE.

I SUPPORTED IT.

I THINK IT IS A GOOD THING.

WHAT WE HAVE SEEN, HE IS

TALKING ABOUT A GOVERNOR'S

BILL.

IT WASN'T DISCUSSED UNTIL

EIGHT WEEKS INTO THE

SESSION.

THAT WAS A SERIOUS PROPOSAL

THAT SHOULD HAVE STARTED ON

DAY ONE.

WE DO KNEAD TO DO SOMETHING

WITH IT.

WE TALKED ABOUT THESE

GROWING TAXES, 5 CENTS LAST

YEAR, 8 CENTS AND SO ON, YOU

CAN'T SUSTAIN IT.

TAXPAYERS CAN'T CONTINUE TO

DO THAT.

WE NEED TO DEAL WITH HOW WHO

DEAL WITH IT AND ALSO DEAL

WITH GOVERNANCE.

I SUPPORT THE GOVERNANCE

BILL THAT IS CURRENTLY IN

THE HOUSE TO START TO BRING

CONSOLIDATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS

AND TRIED VOLUNTARY

CONSOLIDATION.

WE TRIED THAT AND GAVE US AN

INCENTIVE BUT WHY WOULD YOU

WANT TO CONSOLIDATED?

I THINK THE GOVERNANCE

PROPOSAL, IT'S NOT PERFECT

OR DOESN'T GO AS FAR AS I

WOULD LIKE BUT YOU HAVE TO

START THERE.

YOU HAVE TO BRING THE

MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL

DISTRICT DOWN IF YOU ARE

GOING TO SAVE MONEY OR

CONTAIN COSTS, YOU CAN'T

CONTINUE TO HAVE 260 PLUS

SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE

STATE.

WITH THAT COMES A NEW

FINANCING MECHANISM, COST

AND REVENUE, I BELIEVE THEY

HAVE TO BE THE SAME BILL.

>> IS THERE ANY WORRY THAT

CONSOLIDATION WILL LEAD TO

LOSS OF LOCAL CONTROL?

>> REALITY IS WE TALK LOWELL

CONTROL, BUT IF HAD YOU A

COUPLE OF SCHOOL BOARD

MEMBERS, MOST ITEMS THEY

MANDATED FROM WASHINGTON.

THERE IS VERY LITTLE LOCAL

CONTROL.

THE LOCAL CONTROL THAT I

KNEW 20 YEARS AGO IS NO

LONGER.

ALL THE MANDATES, SCHOOL

BOARD MEMBERS HAVE VERY

LITTLE CONTROL OVER ANYTHING.

THEY ARE FORCED TO SIT THERE

AND IMPLEMENT THINGS WITH NO

MONEY AND FUNDING MANDATES.

I THINK WE HAVE TO TAKE --

IT'S POLITICAL PUSH AND

THERE WILL BE SOME OF MY

CONSTITUENTS THAT WILL BE

CONCERNED -- MY SCHOOL

SUPERINTENDENT SUPPORTS IT.

I SUPPORT IT.

WE HAVE TO GET THESE COSTS

UNDER CONTROL.

>> LET'S TALK MORE ABOUT

THAT JUST AFTER

>>> REPRESENTATIVE TURNER

JOINS US THIS MORNING.

LET'S CONTINUE THE

CONVERSATION.

IS THERE A PRICE TAG BEHIND

THE PROPOSAL YOU HAVE ABOUT

CONSOLIDATION, HOW MUCH CAN

WE SAVE?

>> I THINK THE PRELIMINARY

NUMBERS AND NOT BIG SAVINGS

INITIALLY BUT OVERTIME IT

WILL GROW MORE RAPIDLY.

WHAT THE CONSOLIDATION

PROPOSAL, I HOPE THE SPEAKER

HAS CHANGED TONE ON THIS.

IT'S NOT EASY.

I DON'T THINK IT IS A CAUCUS

ISSUE OR REPUBLICANS OR

DEMOCRATS.

THIS AN ISSUE THAT WILL TAKE

LOCAL WILL POWER AND LOCAL

CONTROL IS A VOLATILE ISSUE.

THEY NEED TO MAKE IT

PERSONAL.

WE HAVE TO MOVE TO IMPROVE

EDUCATION FOR OUR STUDENTS.

VERMONT KIDS DESERVE BETTER.

WE ARE SPENDING PROBE THE

MOST OR SECOND MOST IN THE

COUNTRY AND WE DON'T GET THE

BEST OUTCOMES.

SOME OF THAT IS BECAUSE WE

SPENT SO MUCH MONEY ON

INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROTECTED

ON THESE AREAS.

WE NEED TO HAVE BETTER OUTCOMES

FOR OUR STUDENTS AND WE NEED

MORE ACCESS FOR THINGS.

BETTER USE OF OUR TEACHERS

AND BETTER USE OF TECHNOLOGY

AND BETTER USE OF OUR

ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORTED

TEAMS.

THE OTHER THING WE DO IN

VERMONT, WE DO A LOT OF

SOCIAL WORK IN THE SCHOOLS.

WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO WORK

ON THOSE WHERE WE PROVIDE

SERVICES BUT TO RECOGNIZE

WHERE THOSE SERVICES ARE

GOING AND HOW MUCH IT COSTS.

>> IS THAT FEASIBLE GIVEN

TWO WEEKS IN THE SESSION

ACCORDING TO JOHN CAMPBELL

AND SPEAKER CHAD SMITH, IT

APPEARS TO BE GET OUT OF

TOWN DAY FOR THE

LEGISLATURE.

>> I HOPEFUL THEY WILL GET

YOU ON OUT THAT DAY.

IT'S IMPORTANT, BUT

PERTAINING TO THIS ISSUE,

IT'S DISAPPOINTING THAT WE

DIDN'T START THE FIRST DAY

OF THE SESSION.

THE MESSAGE ON THE STREET

WAS YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING

ABOUT THIS.

NOBODY REALLY WANTED TO.

NOW IT IS STARTING TO.

AS I'M GOING TO SAY, THIS IS

NOT A POWER LINE ISSUE.

THIS IS BIG SCHOOL VERSUS

LITTLE SCHOOL AND IF YOU

REPRESENT LITTLE SCHOOL...

BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE

THAT PUSH.

WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO AS

PRESIDENT PRO TEM TO GET

THIS AS FAR AS WE CAN GET IT.

WITH THAT, WE HAVE TO WORRY

ABOUT HOW WE PAY FOR IT.

WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT

ISSUE NO MATTER WHAT.

I DON'T REALLY WANT TO

CHANGE, MY CAUCUS AND

MYSELF, WE DON'T WANT TO

CHANGE THE REVENUE STREAM

WHERE WE MAKE IT EASIER FOR

PEOPLE TO GROW A BUDGET.

>> ON ACT 6068, YOU

MENTIONED THE REPEAL PLAN BY

REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, THAT

IT DOESN'T PROPOSE ANOTHER

SYSTEM.

IN THE LEGISLATURE, WELL,

ACT 6068 MAY NOT BE THE

PROBLEM BUT PUTTING A HARD

TAP ON WHAT SOME OF THESE

LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS CAN

SPEND.

REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS BEEN

QUITE CRITICAL OF THE

GOVERNOR FOR BEING A

SUPPORTER OF THE PUSH

WITHOUT HAVING A FINANCIAL

PLAN IN PLACE.

IF WE GO WITH 6068 IS THAT A

BIT HYPOCRITICAL?

>> I HAVE CONCERN WITH THAT.

I KNOW THAT REPRESENTATIVE

CONRAD AND SHERMAN, THERE

HAS BEEN A LOT OF

DISCUSSION -- IN VERMONT, WE

RELY ON 6% OF REVENUE

SCHOOLS AND ON PROPERTY TAX

AND 40% ON NEXT TAX.

NATIONAL AVERAGE, 60% FROM

INCOME AND 40% FROM THE

PROPERTY.

THE PROBLEM IN VERMONT IS

PROPERTY TAX.

YOU ARE SEEING THESE LARGE

INCREASES YEAR AFTER YEAR.

I THINK WE DO NEED TO SHIFT,

NO QUESTION WE NEED TO SHIFT

THE WAY WE FUND OUR SCHOOLS.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE, THERE

HAS BEEN A DISCUSSION FOR A

NUMBER OF YEARS IN THE

EDUCATION PROPERTY TAX BILL

THAT PASSED THE HOUSE FOR

THE PROVISION, THE TAX

SHIFTING FROM 6068 TO A MORE

INCOME BASED PROPERTY TAX.

IT JUST MAKES US MOVE IN

THAT DIRECTION.

>> AND SHIFTS INCOME

SENSITIVITY FOR THOSE THAT

QUALIFY WHILE STILL HIT

WEIGH A SLIGHTLY HIGHER TAX

RATE?

>> WHICH DOESN'T WORK IN MY

PERSPECTIVE.

IF YOU SHIFT ENTIRELY TO AN

INCOME AND BASICALLY RELAY

ABOUT $130 MILLION FOR

SENSITIVITY.

YOU SHIFT MORE TO THE INCOME,

YOU WILL ELIMINATE THE

INCOME SENSITIVITY EVERYBODY

PAYS.

>> THERE IS DISCUSSION, I

HAVEN'T -- I SUPPORT THE

GOALS OF SWITCHING AND

REDUCING THE DEPENDENCE ON

THE PROPERTY TAX AND MOVING

IT TO MORE OF AN INCOME TAX,

BUT I WILL NOT SUPPORT

ANYTHING UNTIL WE DEAL WITH

IT.

YOU HAVE TO REACH THE VOTER

WITH THE SCHOOL BUDGET.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS

LIKE 6068 WHEN YOU GO TO THE

BALLOT, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT

IT IS GOING TO DO TO YOU.

HISTORICALLY, YOU KNEW HOW

MUCH YOUR TAXES ARE GOING

UP.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA BECAUSE THE

LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO VOTE

AFTER THE SCHOOL BUDGET.

>> I WANT TO GET TO THE

CELLPHONE BAN, WE'VE

DISCUSSED AT THE BEGINNING

OF THE SESSION, IS THIS DEAD

IN THE BOUGHT.

THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND

I SUPPORT THE SENATOR AND I

FULLY SPORT THIS.

THERE WAS NO WAY FOR PEOPLE

TO ENFORCE THE CELLPHONE BAN,

YOU COULD BE DIALING YOUR

PHONE... SO I AM A FULL

SUPPORTER AND MOST OF MY

CAUCUS SUPPORTS THIS.

IT PASSED THE HOUSE

OVERWHELMINGLY.

I AM HOPEFUL THAT THE

GOVERNOR WILL CHANGE HIS

MIND.

>> AND HE WANTS A LARGER

DEFINITION.

IF THEY HAVE TIME TO CREATE

THAT, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT

COULD BE SPOSHTD?

>> I THINK WE NEED TO DEAL

WITH DISTRACTED DRIVERS IS

VERY IMPORTANT.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE TODAY TO

DEAL WITH THIS.

>> REPRESENTATIVE DON TURNER,

THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING

US.

>> THANKS FOR JOINING US

THIS MORNING.

WE'LL SEE YOU SOON.

Powered by WorldNow
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2014 WorldNow and WCAX. All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.