On Monday, Tax Commissioner Bill Shouldice issued his annual December 1 letter estimating property tax rates for the coming fiscal year. It was completely predictable bad news: Shouldice projects a roughly 12% increase in property tax bills, a figure largely attributable to Our Political Betters’ decision to kick the tax can down the road this year by using one-time money to cut a double-digit increase down to one measly percentage point. They knew, at the time, that (in the words of T Bone Burnett among many others) There Would Be Hell To Pay.
Almost as predictable as the 12% increase is the practically unanimous response from Our Betters: They plan to double down on Act 73, which (a) would have no effect whatsoever on next year’s taxes and (b) promises future cost savings that are unproven at best and chimerical at worst.
Gov. Phil Scott: ““The choice before lawmakers in 2026 is clear: show courage by working together to keep moving forward with [Act 73,] our bipartisan transformation plan.”
Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth: “Last session, the Governor and the Legislature worked together to pass a framework for transforming our education financing system. It was not easy; too many opposed any approach but the status quo… The truth is that Act 73’s success depends on even harder work being accomplished this session. I am committed to continuing this mission – in collaboration with the Governor, the House and my colleagues in the Senate…”
Oh, WHAT a brave man, heaping scorn on those who didn’t fall in line as “oppos[ing] any approach but the status quo,” when, in fact, NOBODY wanted to continue the status quo. They just happened to not like Act 73.
House Speaker Jill Krowinski, whose own caucus was deeply split on Act 73: “Last year, we passed comprehensive legislation to transform our education system and today’s property tax projection is a reminder why this critical effort must continue.” She then echoed Baruth’s slap at Act 73 critics: “Taking no action is not an option.” (Or maybe Baruth echoed Krowinski, I don’t know.)
Again, who the absolute hell is calling for no action at all? Point me to one person. Just one. Bueller? Bueller?
I don’t know what’s more depressing: The fact that our top politicians intend to ignore the widespread consternation and anger that greeted Act 73 and the equally widepsread opposition from the educational community, or the fact that legislative leadership seems to be in lockstep with our Republican governor on the number-one issue of this biennium. Shall we say it does not bode well for any hopes of a competitive Democratic campaign against the governor next year? I think that’s a safe conclusion.
After all, the governor’s relentless drive to cut educational costs, even if it means adopting an unproven strategy while sacrificing local control and closing a lot of local schools, would seem to be a natural pressure point against a politician who is seemingly immune to pressure. But it’d be hard for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate to flout the agenda of Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. Could make for some awkward moments on the ol’ coordinated campaign trail.
Unless you’re another Esther Charlestin, or a better-known figure willing to buck the establishment like Brenda Siegel or David Zuckerman.
Oh hey, speak of the devil, the former Lite-Guv is the only high-profile political figure to speak out against this sudden consensus. He issued a statement slamming the governor for spouting “Slogans Not Solutions” and criticizing executive and legislative leadership for failing to tackle property tax reform years ago. Zuckerman also says that hundreds of millions could be saved through “data-driven reforms” in public education management.
But hey, who wants to hear from a loser, amirite? Let’s just stick with the “winners” who are offering us nothing but a speeded-up implementation of Act 73 and offering nothing to voters looking for an alternative to Phil Scott.
Bueller?
The Vermont Political Observer. 
I have been very disappointed with media coverage of this issue as well. A recent Seven Days article essentially devolved to a he said she said parroting of the opposing talking points. Gov and Ed Sec say that their consolidation will save money, while task force says it won’t and their plan will save money (and has already been implemented in part of Vermont). Meanwhile the Gov denies this. It seems a simple case of digging into the existing model for cooperative suggested by the task force to see if it actually did produce savings. Or alternatively- at least asking the players to provide EVIDENCE to back up their claims. If they cannot, it should be printed loud and clear that they have said stuff but when asked for prove it they had nothing to back it up. Saunders loves to tout the “data driven decision making” so where is it? It’s the job of the press to push back on these statements and dig into the meat of things to provide the public with context.
To me, it’s interesting in that if the consolidation done under Act 46 did not lower education costs then how is it that Act 73, which is essentially the same thing wrapped a little differently, will lower costs? If you don’t tame the beast of our scandalous health care fiasco, then you’re never going to contain education costs, no matter how much our state government tries to take over the public system for whatever reasons that it wants to.