Today, Campaign for Vermont Prosperity (CFV) released a report looking at education data in Vermont to help identify opportunities for cost savings and better performance. A decade after Act 46, it’s clear that district consolidation was not the answer. Education spending has skyrocketed while outcomes have declined.

As a property taxpayer, I was relieved to see that the December 1^st letter from the Tax Commissioner did not warn of another double-digit tax increase. However, as a public policy advocate, that relief dissipated as I dug into the details.

Today we released a report examining migration patterns into and out of the state using Census and Internal Revenue Service data.

As humans, we love to follow the path of least resistance, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that our technologically administered society has embraced the trifecta of quick, simple, and easy. As technical innovations have brought the whole world on demand and within easy reach of our fingertips, the pursuit of the “here and now” has triumphed over delayed gratification; we aim to numb ourselves from all friction, pain, and aggravation. Lest we prematurely and euphorically celebrate our perceived triumphs over such friction, we might pause and inquire as to the cost? What might be the unintended consequences to our personal well-being and performance as we continue along this trajectory?

So much of our resilience is forged in the crucible of discomfort. Muscles and mental acuity both require resistance and stimulation; like a body builder working out at a gym or a scholar studying for long hours. Inertia and inaction lead to boredom and frailty. Where will we acquire our grit, our perseverance, our anti-fragility in a world served up with the click of a button or voice command? In particular, where will the youth of today experience these things when the accelerationism surrounding AI promises to reduce our cognitive load in the same manner that earth moving machines and relieved the burdens on our muscles? How has this already impacted education? How will it impact it in the future?

Campaign for Vermont is hiring! After years of being a board-run organization we are looking to staff up again to address major legislative initiatives.

Dear Public Utility Commission,

As your public comment period on Act 18 ends, we wanted to reiterate the importance of Vermonters knowing what the cost of this potential program will be. As we endeavor to combat the sources of climate change and the associated impacts on the daily lives of Vermonters, we, as citizens of this state, deserve to know what the costs and benefits of the Clean Heat Standard will actually be so that public policy makers can best evaluate how to deploy our limited resources for maximum impact.

Many people have probably heard of the Clean Heat Standard, a "carbon tax", or a fee on carbon-based heating fuels. Governor Scott vetoed the legislation to design the Clean Heat Standard, saying that it would increase cost of living for those that could least afford it. Leaders of the super-majority in the Legislature have called some of these claims "misinformation" and are adamant that carbon-pricing is necessary to combat climate change.

So what is the Clean Heat Standard, and what does it do? We break it down here for you with the help of one of the people on the advisory group designing what this system will ultimately look like.

July 1 has come and gone, and with it the end of Vermont’s 2024 fiscal year on June 30 and the start of fiscal 2025 on July 1. Given it’s an election year in Vermont, now is a good time to consider important fiscal trends within the budget that might bite taxpayers going forward.

The Commission on the Future of Public Education has recently begun its legislatively man­dated 18-month lifespan. The commission was established by  Act 183[1] of 2024 in response to wide­spread negative public reaction to the 13.9 percent statewide property tax increase needed to support FY25 public education spending.

The rural-urban divide in Vermont has been exacerbated by historical and ongoing legislative decisions that disproportionately favor urban areas, leaving rural communities marginalized and underrepresented. This issue is rooted in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1960s rulings that established "one person, one vote," intended to ensure equal representation. However, this principle has led to a concentration of political power in urban centers like Burlington, which wields significant influence over state politics and policy decisions. This imbalance often neglects the unique needs and challenges faced by rural communities.