Sane people are puzzled over the question of how our Vermont public school system can lose roughly twenty-five percent of its student population since Act 60 “reform” in 1997, yet now cost three times as much – and return worse results for students. But conversations in the Commission on the Future of Education in Vermont reveal that unchecked spending without transparency or accountability – and its impact on the statewide property tax — is a feature of the system, not a bug.
At the November 18th meeting of the Finance Subcommittee, an enlightening exchange took place between Nichole Mace, representing the School Boards Association, and chair Emilie Kornheiser (D-Brattleboro), who is also chair of the House Ways & Means Committee. Mace described the history and structure of the statewide education property tax as a “self-balancing fund [i.e. designed so lawmakers can wash their hands of tax increases]… where programs can be created, and they just get funded” without real discussion or consideration for cost. Yup! This is the problem that must be solved, the drunken pink elephant dancing with a martini glass in the room, the unsustainable dynamic that must be eradicated.
However, for lawmakers like Kornheiser and her senate counterpart, Ann Cummings (D-Washington), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, this problem isn’t a problem – a hair-tearing reality close observers have known for decades. And this is why no thinking person should believe this farcical commission has any intention of solving it.
Mace explained, “[I]f you had to have a conversation around [spending priorities and] tradeoffs in the general fund maybe the outcome [regarding uncontrolled spending on K-12] would have been different.” But, either way, “The point is the property tax is taking on responsibility for anything that gets added onto the Ed Fund.” Without open debate or consideration of cost to the taxpayer. Again, yup!
To put this in plain language, the Ed Fund is basically a slush fund for tax-and-spend lawmakers where they can – or could until this year – get away with soaking the taxpayers without having to publicly justify let alone take responsibility for the expenses and then shrug their shoulders when the property tax bills came due. Not our fault!
It’s ridiculous. Kornheiser, however, likes this dynamic. Loves it! “If it [education spending] was in the general fund,” she noted, “there would be a conversation about tradeoffs….” Uh, yeah. “But what happens when those tradeoffs are made and things are underfunded, because everything in the General Fund is underfunded.” Cummings agreed, solemnly chiming in, “And it is.”
Let’s rewind and play that statement again: “Everything in the General Fund is underfunded.” Really? EVERYTHING? UNDERFUNDED? Vermont is one of the most heavily taxed states in the Union. Our state budget for 640,000 residents is $8.5 billion, up from $5.8 billion in pre-Covid 2019, and even then, we were among the most highly taxed and highest spending states. The general fund made up $2.9 billion of that total in 2024. That’s about $4500 per resident in just General Fund spending (over $9200 per taxpayer).
What’s clear from this little back and forth is that Kornheiser and Cummings, neither in their roles on the Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont nor in their roles as chairs of the two major money committees in the legislature, have any real interest in curbing spending and providing tax relief to their constituents. Quite the opposite. They want to tax and spend more! And they don’t want any real debate over priorities or capacity. The education finance system as it is structured is a problem, for sure, but the biggest problem at the moment is these people and their attitudes.
Vermont’s problem is not, as they believe that we tax and spend too little. It is that our elected officials waste our money and spend it inefficiently. In fact, according to WalletHub, Vermont’s taxpayer return on investment is the 43rd in the nation. That’s bad. We need to have conversations about spending priorities. We need lawmakers willing to make the decisions that lead to lean, efficient, and effective government. Because when folks like Kornheiser and Cummings shirk their responsibility to have difficult conversations about what to cut at the state level, those conversations have to happen at the kitchen table in regard to household budgets. And as for that, Kornheiser and Cummings do not seem to care. In fact, that’s their plan.
