The Legislature made the second of two $100,000 investments in the Farm-to-Plate initiative. This has included thousands of Vermonters in the agricultural sector in building a 10-year strategic plan for the state’s agricultural economy. With a near monopoly setting unfairly low dairy prices for farmers, it’s critical Vermont continue to nurture farms that are diversifying, whether it be to livestock, produce or conversion to organic.

For the short-term, I co-authored legislation that will invest a modest portion of the stimulus dollars that came to Vermont in aggregation and distribution infrastructure so groups of farmers can sell their produce to Vermont’s hospitals, colleges and large businesses. Many farms are too small to create vendor relationships with, say, Fletcher Allen. Shared facilities will open up new markets for local farmers.

Unfortunately, the mistreatment of animals at the Bushways slaughterhouse in Grand Isle made national news, threatening Vermont’s reputation as a producer of high-quality foods. As a result, we put in place new penalties for people who violate humane treatment laws. This includes, at the Secretary of Agriculture’s discretion, the placement of video cameras on the slaughterhouse floor.

I successfully passed language that will re-direct $50,000 in existing training funds to train the employees of Vermont’s seven slaughterhouses in humane treatment of animals. One legislator who raised beef cows told me it’s humanly impossible for a slaughterhouse employee to treat the thousandth cow of the day the same way as the first. Well, our state policy cannot treat those cows differently, or else we risk undermining the Vermont brand.

Feel free to contact me at timashe@burlingtontelecom.net with any questions.

If you haven’t read his latest op-ed on the issue, it’s here: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=bcc5fc2c-699a-4ee3-8190-b2d7334fad8e

Rookie of the Year

Sen. Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden)

Sen. Tim Ashe, the former Progressive city councilor from Burlington, has been winning over his colleagues with a mix of hard work and humility — as a reward for his eagerness to learn, he wound up on two powerful Senate committees: Institutions; and Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs. These committees have jurisdiction over state economic policy and capital spending. Not bad for a rookie. Ashe has authored legislation to increase the minimum wage on stimulus projects, expand broadband access to rural areas and secure passage of a “Farm to Plate” bill to map out Vermont’s agricultural future. He’s the lead sponsor of a revolving-door bill that would prohibit the Vermont public service commissioner from working for a regulated utility for up to five years after leaving the job. Ashe says he suspects his survey title was a fluke. “It’s like the butterfly ballot in Florida; they thought it was Governor’s Pet that they were voting for.”

Last week I offered an amendment on the Senate floor that would have reduced the Board of Directors compensation at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont (a quasi-public, state-chartered non-profit) by 10% next year. Many people are unaware that BCBS board members make between $15-40K a year. Their counterparts on Vermont hospital board of directors receive no compensation. We’ve asked everyone in state government to make a sacrifice, and the private sector have also sacrificed because of behavior on Wall Street. I thought it only fair that Board members make the same sacrifice we’ve asked of so many other Vermonters. After nearly an hour or debate, the amendment failed. But I hope the proposal exemplified the extent to which the middle class has been asked to sacrifice, while some continue to believe we should relax the expectations of our highest wealth neighbors.

Here is an excerpt of my comments on the Senate floor.

“Thank you Mr. President.

I’d like to preface it by putting this proposal in the context of other decisions that we’ve been making in this body and other things that have been going on in the economy to people who live and work in Vermont.

Over the last couple of years we’ve had our state employees take a 5% pay cut. We’ve had state employees and state teachers take cuts in their retirement. Executive branch staff making over $60,000 have taken a 5% pay cut. State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, 5% pay cuts. Legislators, 5% pay cuts. The unemployed, after the unemployment insurance bill ultimately works its way through the process, will see between a 5 and 10% benefit cut. Small business owners, involuntary pay cuts. And worst of all, I think, the Vermont median household income, so the typical Vermont family, between 2005 and 2008, saw a 10% reduction in their household income.

Speaking on the Senate floor

Complement that with the fact that we’ve passed a budget out of this body that, for Catamount health enrollees, so people of modest means, people who are generally working but don’t qualify for some of the deeper subsidy programs, we’ve doubled their deductibles, we’ve increased co-pays 10-15%, we’ve increased out-of-pocket maximums 25-33%. In last year’s budget we raised prescription drug co-pays for our very poorest senior citizens.

And that’ll bring me to some of the information that is just being passed to you. The cover sheet is the Board of Directors compensation sheet for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont…

It is my contention that we have seen the reduction in pay, reduction in compensation, increase in costs for low income people, so thoroughly throughout this state over the last several years, in particular out of the spirit that we are all facing a very difficult time together, and we all must sacrifice together…

When the story emerged several years ago about the lavish golden parachute that was offered to one Blue Cross Blue Shield employee, it did raise a number of questions about the type of compensation that is appropriate for a non-profit entity like Blue Cross Blue Shield. In looking at the Board of Director compensation, it is not to point fingers or to cast aspersions or to denigrate any of the people or the service they provide, but it was an eye opener when I first saw this information and how much members of a non-profit board made…

When you look at the Blue Cross Blue Shield compensation and compare it to MVP [a for-profit competitor] you’ll notice they they’re pretty comparable… But there is one thing that distinguishes Blue Cross Blue Shield Vermont from MVP which is that Blue Cross Blue Shield is not  a private sector entity in the way that MVP is. Vermont Supreme Court rulings have on a number of occasions deemed that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont is a quasi-public entity rather than a private entity, that the state of Vermont is within its rights to intervene in the governance of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, and also to do so in a manner that ensures that services are being provided at a minimum of cost under efficient and economic management.

So the amendment before you does not suggest that we fundamentally alter the nature of the Blue Cross Blue Shield board. What it says is that just like we have seen reductions in compensation to people throughout the state of Vermont, that we would also ask one of our largest partners here in the state of Vermont, Blue Cross Blue Shield, for their board of directors who, almost without fail, are people…leading banks, hospitals, investment funds and so on, asking them to share some of that burden that we’re asking so many of the state employees, ourselves, and others to take.

10 MINUTE FLOOR INTERROGATION ENSUED

Let me just finish by saying that this has been an interesting conversation, and I hope people will support this amendment. Because one thing that is clear is that we focus on a budget and we talk about how much some poor guy is going to pay for prescription drugs. We focus on how much some person in the Northeast Kingdom is going to pay for a pack of cigarettes. We talk about how much someone is going to pay in gas tax. We talk about how much someone on public assistance is going to get. And the one time we talk about people who, in their private lives and this is not a reflection on them but just to speak to their need for this Board pay, make sometimes up to $350,000, that we talk about reducing their Board compensation by $1500 bucks. If that’s guilty of passing moral judgment about what is fair, then so be it, I’m guilty…”

http://vtdigger.org/2010/05/02/challenges-2-vermonts-economic-development-programs-under-the-knife/

Senate protects meat animals

By DANIEL BARLOW Vermont Press Bureau – Published: April 29, 2010

MONTPELIER – Senate lawmakers approved a bill Wednesday setting tough penalties for Vermont slaughterhouses that abuse or mistreat animals, a reaction to last year’s scandal at a Grand Isle facility that now faces a criminal investigation.

Under the proposed new rules, slaughterhouses could face fines of between $5,000 and $25,000 for mistreating animals, and a facility would be permanently shut down by the state if it is found in violation more than two times…

The tougher penalties were included in an amendment to H.767, a bill creating a Livestock Care Council to evaluate current laws and recommend new policies to ensure the proper care of animals before they are killed…

But many senators felt the original bill as approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee didn’t go far enough to stop animal abuses like the ones allegedly found at Bushway Packing Inc. in Grand Isle, where workers are accused of kicking, dragging and skinning calves that were still alive.

Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor, said if lawmakers didn’t toughen slaughterhouse regulations that Vermont could become known as “the state where they skin the calves alive before they sell it.” The Bushway scandal attracted national attention last year.

“The video almost exceeds some of the horrific crime scenes I’ve seen,” said Campbell, a former police officer.

The bill, which may need to be voted on again in the House due to the changes made in the Senate, would institute a $5,000 fine for the first violation, a $10,000 fine for the second and a $25,000 fine for the third.

It also would require a facility to install video cameras in areas where livestock are handled after a violation occurs. An amendment added to the bill by Sen. Tim Ashe, D-Chittenden, also allocates up to $50,000 to train slaughterhouse employees.

In the end, I am glad that the negative vote cut across party lines.

Here’s a picture of me speaking on the floor in opposition to (I kid you not) building a second nuclear power plant on Vermont soil. I commented that it was strange that those Senators who believed four years of testimony was insufficient to make the decision on the existing plant would propose approving a new nuclear plant with roughly five minutes of debate in front of the TV crews.

At a Senate Economic Development Committee meeting in Burlington this past Thursday, a representative of the state’s CPAs said the estate tax frequently affects “middle class” people. This sounded a little strange, since at the federal level, only 2% of all estates are subject to any estate tax.

So I dug into the Vermont Department of Taxes data to explore the number of estates actually taxed in VT the last couple years. The number of estates and tax generated is below…

YEAR                  ESTATES                  TAX GENERATED

2007                            114                            17,798,143

2008                            104                            15,696,389

Under the table in the Tax Dept report, it says “Most estates are either not required to file returns or file returns with no payment due.“

Obviously these estates were taxed under the previous tax regime so it’s not a direct comparison. But as I look at these, I draw the conclusion that because only estates valued over $2M were taxed at all, the combined value of the estates in VT in 2008 was NO LESS than 2M x 104 estates = $208M. To actually reach the tax generated, an additional total estate value of $34.9M would be necessary. So the combined worth of the estates was $242.9M, with some only being taxed a small amount (those just over $2M) while some generating much more. Spread over all estates, this represents an effective tax rate of 6.5%. And that’s not including any gifts given to dependents during the estate planning process, when a significant portion of estates are distributed in a manner that avoids any taxation whatsoever.

We all use middle class as a term to reflect a specific group of people we have in mind, but I confess that I have a hard time viewing these estates as those of any “middle class” people I know…

I cannot support repeal of the estate tax for the wealthiest among us precisely because it’s middle class taxpayers who will, as always, have to bear an ever-larger tax burden to make up for the revenue loss.

My Turn: Lax rules drive up health care costs

by Tim Ashe – Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The Free Press may be correct that the Legislature will be hard-pressed to pursue significant health care reform this year (Premature to take up health care in Vermont, Dec. 20) at the same time Congress debates a national plan.

But there is no excuse for the Legislature to stand by in the meantime while Vermont throws away millions each year on existing mismanaged programs.

Take, for example, Catamount Health, which the Free Press editorial declares “has proven to be unsustainable with the economic downturn.” Is the economic downturn really the only issue? Might poor regulation of the private insurers who provide Catamount plans be part of the sustainability problem? Let’s consider Vermont’s experience since Catamount’s adoption.

In 2006 the Legislature’s health care consultant, Dr. Ken Thorpe, projected the unsubsidized premium for Catamount coverage would be $305 per month. Because reimbursements would be tied to Medicare rates, he projected an annual growth rate in premiums in the 3.5% to 4.5% range.

Unfortunately for Vermont taxpayers, since Catamount began in 2007, we’ve had a very different experience. The initial premium awarded to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and MVP in October 2007 was $393/month, a whopping 29% more than worst-case projections at Catamount’s inception. That rate is in place today. And just three months ago, MVP announced it was requesting a shocking 31% increase for 2009-10.

After having the gall to request a 31% increase in our current deflationary economy, MVP lowered their requested increase to 12.4%. Blue Cross/Blue Shield has also asked the State for a – you guessed it – 12.4% rate increase. That’s some coincidence.

Bill Little, president of MVP in Vermont, has said of their rate request: “It’s definitely a sustainable rate, it is an appropriate rate.” I hope the Free Press joins me in affirming that this is not an appropriate rate – not from MVP, and most definitely not from BC/BS in the same year it sent its CEO off with a $6.3 million golden parachute. (It’s worth noting that a year’s worth of proposed premium increases for all 9,300 Catamount enrollees could be more than covered for much less than $6.3 million).

Vermont’s regulatory record with Catamount looks still more troubling when viewed in the context of trends in health care spending:

• BISHCA’s January 2009 health expenditure survey pegged Vermont’s 2007 growth in health care spending at only 4.5%.

• A June 2008 article in the New England Journal of Medicine reported the per person cost of Massachusetts’ Commonwealth Care was $352.43 a month, compared to the $393.11 allowed for Catamount, despite the fact Massachusetts’ per capita health costs are above the national average, while Vermont’s are 90% of national.

• A study of President Obama’s original health care proposal conducted just months ago by the Lewin Group put the 2009 cost of an unsubsidized single premium for a policy comparable to Catamount at $298/month – a level comparable to Dr. Thorpe’s estimate.

At present, there are 1,339 Vermonters who pay full cost for their Catamount enrollment. Taxpayers pay a share of the burden, however, for the remaining 7,988 enrollees. Every inflated dollar of premium for those subsidized Vermonters is another dollar burned by taxpayers. Unfortunately we’re burning millions.

Catamount is not unsustainable, but it will quickly become so if BC/BS and MVP continue to have their way with Vermont regulators.

Rather than merely opine about Catamount’s sustainability, or to blame its challenges solely on the economy, the Free Press would serve its readers well to dedicate investigative staff time to exploring in detail why BC/BS and MVP are being allowed to charge Vermont taxpayers so much more than had been anticipated.

Then the Free Press can move on to challenge the hospitals for their combined requested $112 million budget increase (excepting the frugal folks at Springfield Hospital, who came in with a $1.7 million decrease).