Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Beardly_Smith t1_ivnvnrf wrote

Why does it matter if he’s a republican. That’s the kind of bullshit sentiment that splits the country in the first place. The fact that VT is a nice mix of libs and conservatives and can vote for people based on character and not color is exactly how the rest of the country should be run.

As for the “why do we continue to vote for a republican governor” the answer is simple. He does a good job

168

dwigtschrute32 t1_ivo11ap wrote

In 6 years, Governor Scott has vetoed 32 bills that were debated and passed by the legislature. Some highlights of the bills, that the people we elected to the legislature would have made law, include: *H505- to create a drug use standards advisory board. Which would include experts from health, mental health, substance use disorder and the drug user community to establish penalties for possession. *H715- which would have reformed the Vermont clean heat standard to align with the climate action plan. When asked about how this was vetoed, when his administration was included in the development of the plan, Scott said "they asked my staff, but they didn't ask me." Leads one to wonder the purpose of having staff included in all of these groups if they don't represent you. *H728- to commission a study on overdose sites. When asked about it in a debate, he noted that since it wouldn't be feasible to have overdose site everywhere, we shouldn't have them at all. *H157- creating a statewide registry of residential building contractors. This would have created a coordinated system for responding to complaints of fraud, and required contractor to carry liability insurance. *H107 - establishing statewide paid family leave that would be paid for out of a payroll tax for workers and employees, instead saying it should be voluntary for people to offer it. Spoiler- it's already voluntary. That's why so many people have no access to paid leave.

There are clearly many more - but the long and short of it is that we have different ideas of what "doing a good job" is. Imagine if these vetos hadn't happened and these bills, passed by the legislature, had become law. Imagine living in that Vermont - where everyone had access to paid family leave, you could shop for a home contractor with less worry about fraud, we were working towards some solution on overdosing, we were actually enacting the largest portion of the climate action plan, and we had experts making decisions on drug penalties based on evidence. Vermont would be a nicer place to live for everyone.

*Edit: issues with tense.

84

[deleted] t1_ivo6ud6 wrote

[deleted]

73

PuddleCrank t1_ivoxo97 wrote

No to mention that by working together the progressives and the democrats in the state house can easily bypass the governor.

13

Mallard_a4_Thoth t1_ivopu0b wrote

Exactly. In a perfect world, all or most of those laws would be great to have. But how do we pay for it without adding strain to the already struggling? Most of the responses I've heard have been soft versions of "suck it up, poor folks".

12

todd_ted t1_ivo72kw wrote

Imagine how much it would cost taxpayers to fund all of these items in an already expensive state to live in.

29

rufustphish OP t1_ivoejhn wrote

Think of how much the problems currently cost the state. It's not a zero sum game.

17

todd_ted t1_ivoj3b4 wrote

I agree but it’s not all sunshine and rainbows if these bills were signed or allowed to become law either. There are costs to everything, costs to not taking action and costs to taking action.

FWIW, I never said that I don’t support any of these ideas in theory either.

5

Outrageous-Outside61 t1_ivo2vuf wrote

He did a good job vetoing a couple of those bills.

H715 - a clean heat standard? Aka get rid of the old wood stoves and switch to more heat pumps running off an already outdated grid?

H107 &H157 - democrats really do want to kill off the last remaining small business owners we have, huh.

If there was a decent democrat candidate they might get somewhere, but as it stands now flip flop Phil is basically running uncontested. He’s a decent, moderate guy and also, the incumbents always win in VT.

14

[deleted] t1_ivo6oay wrote

[deleted]

3

Outrageous-Outside61 t1_ivo6xn0 wrote

PFML is hard on small businesses. I watched it come into effect in Massachusetts while working for a small business before moving home to start my own. It’s one of those bills that’s really well intentioned but horribly implemented.

13

rufustphish OP t1_ivoevf3 wrote

If you're company can't afford to pay people and treat them fairly, you don't deserve to have a business. Why does your right to own a business trample others rights to work for a livable wage and adequate time off?

1

Outrageous-Outside61 t1_ivof8de wrote

I mean, that is exactly what happened in the example I gave. My previous employer shut down the vegetable side of the operation, which caused 4 people to lose their job.

If you want to pass legislation to shut down small business that’s fine, but you should have to own that. Don’t pass it off as saying it’s legislation for “workers rights”

8

rufustphish OP t1_ivoga1c wrote

I see you lack the empathy to realize the company owner made the choice to lay off those folks, not the government.

The owner failed to plan. No one has the right to own a business if they can't respect their workers rights.

I'm also perplexed how such a small company of 5 people would fall under this law, but I have not read it.

Not surprised you work in Agriculture with these opinions though. Seems workers rights are not respected much in that industry from my experience.

5

Electrical-Bed8577 t1_iwakdg8 wrote

Sounds like the child bearing couple failed to plan. Then failed to notify the very small business for six months. Or, no one wants to ag-temp? Find that hard to believe. Are we talking about more than one business here? Zzzz. Either way, should be a federal law.

1

Twombls t1_ivoig0e wrote

I agree with this. We need paid family leave.

5

[deleted] t1_ivo72se wrote

[deleted]

0

Outrageous-Outside61 t1_ivo7qzu wrote

Never been a small business owner, have you. Absurdly long family leave isn’t possible on many small businesses. You’ve got to replace that position while that employee is out, if that employee is more than a mindless drone that gets damn near impossible.

8

[deleted] t1_ivo7zdq wrote

[deleted]

−2

Outrageous-Outside61 t1_ivo8x29 wrote

Your comment makes zero sense to mine. I’m not stuck as a employer. I made the choice to follow my dreams and start my own business. There’s nothing bleak about my tea, and the banks aren’t involved or winning anything here.

Say I diversify and open a vegetable farm alongside my current operation. Say my vegetable managers wife gets pregnant and is due in July. Under Massachusetts new law the manager of my vegetable operation is now eligible for 8 weeks paternity leave. I can’t replace this manager as someone who would be capable of doing this job during the busy period isn’t looking for an 8 week temp job. I can’t take on the management as this is also my busiest time of the year. I can’t legally fire this manager and hire a new one. The only option I have left is to close the vegetable operation down.

I watched this happen at the last job I had before going off on my own and moving home.

7

Generic_Commenter-X t1_ivoavpx wrote

We should have family leave in this country but this should be done and supported at the federal level. The problem is that unlike Europe, the US lacks the cultural and political maturity to enact policies like these and for Vermont to support them alone would be exorbitant; and it's too much to ask of small business owners without adequate funding.

12

Outrageous-Outside61 t1_ivobxhf wrote

I’ll tentatively agree with you here. But I also don’t trust the federal government to do pretty much anything. These policies can work great in small wealthy nations, but for better or worse, that is not the US.

2

Generic_Commenter-X t1_ivodwz5 wrote

Generally speaking, private industry does a much worse job running "pretty much anything" than government. For example, infrastructure and public transportation. The US Military is government run and nobody fucks with our military. If you want to live in a country and under a government managed by unregulated private interests and industry—the environment, the military and infrastructure—there's always Russia. There's a reason so many US Conservatives idolize the likes of Putin and Orban.

2

Outrageous-Outside61 t1_ivoel8o wrote

I’m honestly not conservative or liberal, I vote by issue and which candidate I think best reflects my views on the issues I believe are important at the time. And I’ll agree that private business is not the answer for many of our problems as well. To be honest, I don’t think there is an answer to many of our problems that involves anything but ourselves at a personal level.

2

Outrageous-Outside61 t1_ivoeoqp wrote

For what it’s worth, I agree with your sentiment. I just don’t see how it’s possible to apply in the United States.

2

Generic_Commenter-X t1_ivoioyv wrote

It's a constant struggle... Just keep voting, just keep voting... (sung to the tune of Just keep swimming....)

2

rufustphish OP t1_ivof7f8 wrote

Why are your rights as a business owner more important than your workers right to have paid family leave?

0

Outrageous-Outside61 t1_ivofj2v wrote

Why are you against small business in a state that the majority of employees work at one? Do you only want soul sucking mega corporations in the state?

2

rufustphish OP t1_ivogorw wrote

What a logical leap you just took. Never said anything about being against small business.

I own a small business.

What I said was, if you can't afford to respect your workers rights, you don't deserve to be in business.

Seems like we're never going to agree on that point, good luck in your hiring.

2

Outrageous-Outside61 t1_ivoh9s5 wrote

I mean you support legislature that disproportionately effects small business. It’s not much of a leap from A to B. PFML is much easier on a large corporations with many employees than it is on a small business. I’m curious what your business is with your attitude.

4

Eagle_Arm t1_ivolw9h wrote

Don't think that was said. The example has already been brought up if someone leaves for 8 weeks at a small business.

The work doesn't stop and finding someone to do a job for only 8 weeks is a difficult task. Let alone if the job is technical. How many jobs can someone just show up, do the same work for 8 weeks, and just leave?

It's an example based in the reality of the situation. Would businesses like to give employees time off? Absolutely. Why wouldn't they? I want to be a part of that world where it's possible. Is it feasible? No, so it doesn't happen.

It works at a large business with 1000 employees who can take that work and spread it out over that 8-12 weeks. But a small business with anywhere from 3-20 employees, not an easy task.

Don't get me wrong, I want to be able to take that leave and have my coworkers take it too, but for a small business, it's not a realistic option.

2

vtviking t1_ivpu3t8 wrote

Well under your plan the business closes so no one has family leave

2

PeteDontCare t1_ivo91a1 wrote

Imagine if we weren't watching our education system go completely down the tubes

7

Left-Link5070 t1_ivoazr5 wrote

What are you doing about it, besides watching?

1

PeteDontCare t1_ivohooi wrote

I'm involved and engaged in our local school system, though my schedule doesn't allow me to run for a position on the school board. I am, however, referring to the fact that the Scott administration doesn't particularly value a strong public education system, and I am very much opposed to Dan French. I would hope a different governor would see the value in supporting better pay for teachers and working to reestablish a strong force of quality teachers throughout the state. 10+ years ago, Vermont had a very good public school system. Beginning before Governor Scott came to office, the quality and reputation has been steadily declining, and I know, first hand, of several long time Vermont educators who have gone to NH or changed fields entirely because of frustration with the direction of things.

8

murrly t1_ivsgbvj wrote

Vt has some of the best education in America already thought. Plus we spend wayyyyy more per student than the national average already.

Throwing money at stuff isn't always the answer.

1

brainzilla420 t1_ivoeke0 wrote

Thanks for sharing this, i didn't have the wherewithal to record all the crappy things he had done as governor to answer another comment. Sure, did fine in the pandemic, but also still sucks.

3

rufustphish OP t1_ivo1ys9 wrote

What in your view has he done a really good job on other than Covid?

11

coopaliscious t1_ivo61zh wrote

He passes items when they make sense. A number of the items listed were vetoed because a lack of planning and just plain lack of foresight on their effects. They are great for headlines and usually not fundable, cause harm to Vermonters with unconsidered network effects or he's going to let pass once they're fleshed out ( aka the overdose sites).

17

OkWatermelonlesson19 t1_ivoimtu wrote

The minute anybody says “libs” I automatically stop listening.

5

Twombls t1_ivol33p wrote

Honestly what do you prefer? Dems, libs and progs are all people on the same side but have different political meaning.

I honestly wouldn't call all democrats liberals, some are conservative. Not all liberals are democrats either. Thats a specific political party.

−2

OkWatermelonlesson19 t1_ivona59 wrote

“Libs” is not something someone who is liberal would ever say. “Libs” is a derogatory term used by Trump and his followers which is why I stop listening.

−6

Beardly_Smith t1_ivqa6p7 wrote

Lib is short for liberal you doughnut. Do you also get upset when people say VT instead of Vermont?

2

October7_7 t1_ivq2dnt wrote

Quit being a whiny triggered lib about it

−3

cpujockey t1_ivo7j0d wrote

Uncle Phil is alright! He's done alright by us.

4

BostonUH t1_ivocx4s wrote

I understand your point but don’t think that’s a bullshit sentiment considering the reality is there is only one party who has consistently sided with religious extremists, conspiracy theories, and an attempted insurrection. It’s fairly rational to disregard anyone associated with that party.

2

October7_7 t1_ivq3hhx wrote

I have a hard time agreeing with you purely because Massachusetts and Vermont have consistently had very moderate, independent minded, and generally good moderate Republican governors.

It takes a minute or two to look at the policy individual candidates support. Elections happen every few years. It's not hard to apply critical thinking and not just act blindly party loyal.

5

BostonUH t1_ivr3pij wrote

Absolutely agree that people should do a few minutes of research on policies.

My point is that the sentiment (i.e. “fuck all republicans”) is: a) a direct result of the behavior of a staggering percentage of bad actors who are in positions of power in the GOP, so not really “bullshit” so much as “consequences of their own actions” and b) doesn’t split the country nearly as much as the behavior of those bad actors

3

October7_7 t1_ivr8n1x wrote

"I may be being reductive, tribalistic, and counter-productive, but not as much as the other guy!"

−1

croninstrength t1_ivqddg5 wrote

I was gonna write something along these lines until i saw this. Kudos to you

1