By
Geoffrey Norman
July 31, 2015 6:47 p.m. ET
235 COMMENTS
Dorset, Vt.
The gruff, unkempt Vermonter is knocking them dead. Campaigning for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders is packing houses, making headlines and putting a scare into Hillary Clinton supporters. This despite his being 73 years old and not even a Democrat.
Sen. Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, is the junior senator from Vermont, the state that could plausibly claim the title of the most progressive in the union. Whatever the cause du jour—gay rights, a $15 minimum wage, labeling genetically modified foods—Vermont can be counted on to be near the front of the parade.
The Vermont Progressive Party, running alongside the Democrats and Republicans, has held seats in the state legislature since 1991. A decade ago, resolutions for the impeachment of President George W. Bush were introduced at several town meetings and debated along with matters like leash laws for dogs and the funding of snowplows.
Progressives here take pride in being a kind of vanguard, showing the way for the rest of the nation. Mr. Sanders did much to incubate this spirit in the 1980s as mayor of Burlington, the state’s largest city, by raising taxes on businesses, instituting affordable-housing programs, and initiating cultural events to include poetry readings by Allen Ginsberg and speeches by Noam Chomsky. So as Mr. Sanders makes his case for taking the progressive agenda nationwide, it is interesting to consider how that agenda is doing in Vermont
The answer is . . . not so well. Let’s start with the catastrophic collapse of Vermont’s promises of single-payer health care, which continues to roil state politics. When he ran for election in 2010, Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin made single payer the centerpiece of his campaign. Health care was a right, he said, and, by the way, good for business. Creating a mechanism for delivering it to all Vermonters would be the star by which his administration would sail. The Green Mountain State would provide an example for the nation. And so forth.
Commissions were created. Proposals written. Consultants hired, including Jonathan Gruber of MIT, who was famously caught on tape explaining that the passage of the Affordable Care Act depended on the “stupidity of the American voter.” The problem came down, as it always does, to money. Single payer would be a boon, Vermonters always heard, if only the state could “figure out how to pay for it.” Yes, people thought, that would be nice.
As time went by it became clear that the proposed solution would be to raise taxes. And not a little bit, but by 10% or more—enough to make a taxpayer’s hair stand up. Gov. Shumlin was re-elected comfortably in 2012 with these discussions still going on, with his administration still committed to single payer, and still looking for a way to pay for it.
Bernie Sanders urged the reformers along. “Americans want to see a model that works,” he told the Atlantic in 2013. “If Vermont can be that model it will have a profound impact on discourse in this country.”
What killed single-payer was a combination of sticker shock and political expediency. When Gov. Shumlin ran for a third term in 2014, Republicans nominated a virtually unknown challenger named Scott Milne. Yet the governor beat his GOP opponent by little more than one percentage point, and won only 46.6% of the electorate. The Vermont Constitution provides that if no gubernatorial candidate wins a majority of votes, the election is settled by the legislature, scheduled to meet in January 2015.
The ultimate result was never in doubt, since Democrats control the statehouse. But Mr. Shumlin recognized that something had to give. Before the drama could unfold, the governor called a December press conference to announce that, after four years of study costing slightly more than $2 million, single payer was dead. “The bottom line,” he said, “is that, as we completed the financing modeling in the last several days, it became clear that the risk of economic shock is too high at this time to offer a plan I can responsibly support.”
Where the governor had once estimated such a system might cost $2 billion annually, calculations now suggested $2.59 billion, rising to $3.17 billion in five years. Paying for it would require an 11.5% payroll tax and a sliding-scale income tax with a top rate of 9.5%. Even then, the system would run in the red by 2020.
The legislature, operating in a vacuum left by the collapse of single payer, had to contend with a deficit of more than $100 million—which happens when lawmakers increase spending by 5% annually during a recession. One of its solutions was a tax on “sugary drinks,” which went into effect July 1. It is fiendishly complicated: nonalcoholic drinks with either natural or artificial sweeteners are taxed, while those containing milk or soy are not. Shoppers who buy their soft drinks with food stamps do not pay the tax.
Property taxes continue to rise as the state grapples with an education system that spends, per pupil, 80% more than the national average, according to one estimate. The results are not noticeably better than in similar jurisdictions, meaning ones that do not have to deal with the challenges of inner-city schools.
Meanwhile, the state still faces a heroin problem that officials have long called an “epidemic.” In some areas needle exchanges are more crowded on Saturdays than farmers’ markets. It’s the same old tale: industrial towns hollowed out, dependence on handouts, children born out of wedlock, drug use. But in leafy, rural, independent Vermont?
Yes, unfortunately. This is the progressive paradise from which Bernie Sanders has emerged to deliver the nation. No single payer. Regressive tax on soda pop. Insanely expensive public education. And a statewide heroin problem. Other than that, life here is good. Really.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-single-payer-health-care-failed-in-progressive-paradise-1438382832
We need "more socialism" bwahahahahahahahahaaa
Geoffrey Norman
July 31, 2015 6:47 p.m. ET
235 COMMENTS
Dorset, Vt.
The gruff, unkempt Vermonter is knocking them dead. Campaigning for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders is packing houses, making headlines and putting a scare into Hillary Clinton supporters. This despite his being 73 years old and not even a Democrat.
Sen. Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, is the junior senator from Vermont, the state that could plausibly claim the title of the most progressive in the union. Whatever the cause du jour—gay rights, a $15 minimum wage, labeling genetically modified foods—Vermont can be counted on to be near the front of the parade.
The Vermont Progressive Party, running alongside the Democrats and Republicans, has held seats in the state legislature since 1991. A decade ago, resolutions for the impeachment of President George W. Bush were introduced at several town meetings and debated along with matters like leash laws for dogs and the funding of snowplows.
Progressives here take pride in being a kind of vanguard, showing the way for the rest of the nation. Mr. Sanders did much to incubate this spirit in the 1980s as mayor of Burlington, the state’s largest city, by raising taxes on businesses, instituting affordable-housing programs, and initiating cultural events to include poetry readings by Allen Ginsberg and speeches by Noam Chomsky. So as Mr. Sanders makes his case for taking the progressive agenda nationwide, it is interesting to consider how that agenda is doing in Vermont
The answer is . . . not so well. Let’s start with the catastrophic collapse of Vermont’s promises of single-payer health care, which continues to roil state politics. When he ran for election in 2010, Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin made single payer the centerpiece of his campaign. Health care was a right, he said, and, by the way, good for business. Creating a mechanism for delivering it to all Vermonters would be the star by which his administration would sail. The Green Mountain State would provide an example for the nation. And so forth.
Commissions were created. Proposals written. Consultants hired, including Jonathan Gruber of MIT, who was famously caught on tape explaining that the passage of the Affordable Care Act depended on the “stupidity of the American voter.” The problem came down, as it always does, to money. Single payer would be a boon, Vermonters always heard, if only the state could “figure out how to pay for it.” Yes, people thought, that would be nice.
As time went by it became clear that the proposed solution would be to raise taxes. And not a little bit, but by 10% or more—enough to make a taxpayer’s hair stand up. Gov. Shumlin was re-elected comfortably in 2012 with these discussions still going on, with his administration still committed to single payer, and still looking for a way to pay for it.
Bernie Sanders urged the reformers along. “Americans want to see a model that works,” he told the Atlantic in 2013. “If Vermont can be that model it will have a profound impact on discourse in this country.”
What killed single-payer was a combination of sticker shock and political expediency. When Gov. Shumlin ran for a third term in 2014, Republicans nominated a virtually unknown challenger named Scott Milne. Yet the governor beat his GOP opponent by little more than one percentage point, and won only 46.6% of the electorate. The Vermont Constitution provides that if no gubernatorial candidate wins a majority of votes, the election is settled by the legislature, scheduled to meet in January 2015.
The ultimate result was never in doubt, since Democrats control the statehouse. But Mr. Shumlin recognized that something had to give. Before the drama could unfold, the governor called a December press conference to announce that, after four years of study costing slightly more than $2 million, single payer was dead. “The bottom line,” he said, “is that, as we completed the financing modeling in the last several days, it became clear that the risk of economic shock is too high at this time to offer a plan I can responsibly support.”
Where the governor had once estimated such a system might cost $2 billion annually, calculations now suggested $2.59 billion, rising to $3.17 billion in five years. Paying for it would require an 11.5% payroll tax and a sliding-scale income tax with a top rate of 9.5%. Even then, the system would run in the red by 2020.
The legislature, operating in a vacuum left by the collapse of single payer, had to contend with a deficit of more than $100 million—which happens when lawmakers increase spending by 5% annually during a recession. One of its solutions was a tax on “sugary drinks,” which went into effect July 1. It is fiendishly complicated: nonalcoholic drinks with either natural or artificial sweeteners are taxed, while those containing milk or soy are not. Shoppers who buy their soft drinks with food stamps do not pay the tax.
Property taxes continue to rise as the state grapples with an education system that spends, per pupil, 80% more than the national average, according to one estimate. The results are not noticeably better than in similar jurisdictions, meaning ones that do not have to deal with the challenges of inner-city schools.
Meanwhile, the state still faces a heroin problem that officials have long called an “epidemic.” In some areas needle exchanges are more crowded on Saturdays than farmers’ markets. It’s the same old tale: industrial towns hollowed out, dependence on handouts, children born out of wedlock, drug use. But in leafy, rural, independent Vermont?
Yes, unfortunately. This is the progressive paradise from which Bernie Sanders has emerged to deliver the nation. No single payer. Regressive tax on soda pop. Insanely expensive public education. And a statewide heroin problem. Other than that, life here is good. Really.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-single-payer-health-care-failed-in-progressive-paradise-1438382832
We need "more socialism" bwahahahahahahahahaaa
