McClaughry: 16 pointed questions for 2018 candidates

By John McClaughry

Here are sixteen incisive questions that citizens might want to pose to candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, and the legislature as Election Day 2018 approaches:

1. School Spending Control: Do you believe the state should take control of all K-12 public education, reorganize school districts, mandate higher pupil to staff ratios and enforce rules to control school spending?

John McClaughry

John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute.

2. Paying for Education: Do you support increasing income or sales tax rates to further subsidize residential school property taxes?

3. Parental Choice: Do you support protecting parental choice in education and expanding it to all pupils and parents?

4. School Consolidation: Do you support Act 46 of 2015, which requires consolidation of town school districts into larger unified districts?

5. Minimum Wage: Do you support a state law requiring that all employers pay their employees $15 an hour by 2020?

6. Parental Leave: Do you support mandating employers of more than 10 employees to offer 12 weeks of parental leave per year, for pregnancy, birth, adoption or serious illness, paid for by a payroll tax paid by all covered employers?

7. Energy Mandate: Do you support the state adopting whatever regulations, mandates, subsidies and taxes may be required to make 90 percent of all energy used in Vermont come from renewable sources, such as wind, solar and hydro, by 2050?

8. Carbon Tax: Do you support enactment of a carbon tax on fossil fuels, such as natural gas, heating oil, gasoline, diesel fuel and propane, with the net revenues used to subsidize renewable energy production and the electric bills of low income and rural Vermonters (The ESSEX Plan)?

9. Land Use Regulation: Do you support making a proposed development achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions a condition for obtaining a permit under Act 250, to combat “climate change”?

10. Pension Fund Solvency: Do you support the voting additional funds beyond the “annual required contributions” to the State Employees and Teachers Retirement Funds, in order to work down the present $4.5 billion unfunded liability?

11. Health Insurance Mandate: Do you support the state levying special taxes or fines — or suspending drivers, hunting and fishing, and other licenses — upon individuals who refuse to purchase state-approved health insurance on the Vermont Health Connect exchange?

12. Health Care Reorganization: Do you support creating a mandatory-participation “All Payer” health care system whereby Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance carriers pay a large “Accountable Care Organization” of hospitals, clinics and doctors to manage the health care of the families they cover?

13. Gun Control: Do you support repeal of the provision of Act 94 of 2018 that makes it illegal for an individual to possess a firearms magazine holding more than 10 rounds for a rifle or 15 rounds for a handgun (unless he or she possessed the magazine before Oct. 1, 2018)?

14. Mandatory Seat Belt Usage: Do you support allowing law enforcement to issue tickets to adult drivers, who are not otherwise committing an offense, for driving without a buckled seat belt?

15. Marijuana: Do you support setting up a state-regulated system for the retail sale and taxation of marijuana?

16. Ballot Reform: Do you support changing election law so that voters would cast a single “one big choice” vote for their preferred governor-lieutenant governor team, and the Legislature would elect the treasurer, secretary of state, auditor and attorney general as they do the adjutant general?

Try out the questions that interest you on your candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, House and Senate. If they can’t give you a coherent reply, look for others who can.

John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute.

Images courtesy of Flickr/Alan Levine and John McClaughry

6 thoughts on “McClaughry: 16 pointed questions for 2018 candidates

  1. I think it would be great if TNR or the EAI sent these out to candidates and then published the results. Of course there are far too many uninformed voters who show up and look for names they recognize to vote for. Then again because the left has done such a good job at indoctrination that many wouldn’t even care about these “trivial” positions, relying instead on what will be free and socially responsible regardless of the cost.

  2. Answers to John McClaughry’s 16 Pointed Questions for Candidates !

    While John McClaughry did not include Secretary of State in his list of candidates he anticipated answering his “sixteen incisive question” for candidates – I have responded for those interested in my answers and as an instructive assistance to those contemplating their participation in his survey.

    Here are my answers to John’s questions for candidates for 2018:

    1) Spending Control: Do you believe the state should take control of all K-12 public education, reorganize school districts, mandate higher pupil to staff ratios and enforce rules to control school spending?

    ANSWER: The State has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot effectively manage the administration of education of our youth. The greater the intrusion of the Agency of Education and its predecessors – the greater the damage produced. To be clear, the damage has not been limited to the explosion in costs and future liabilities, more importantly the damage has manifested itself a pervasive decline in student performance and educational outcomes.

    2) Paying for Education: Do you support increasing income or sales tax rates to further subsidize residential school property taxes?

    ANSWER: While it is the duty of the citizens of the State to pay for the education of the youth, before we further complicate and mask the actual costs of education by convoluting and confounding the revenue sources to redirect attention from the exponential increased in educational costs without a commensurate improvement in educational outcomes; we must identify the sources of the uncontrolled expenditures and resolve the issues creating those expenses. Through the years, property taxes have proven the most consistent and reliable source of funding for education – income and sales taxes would nefarious legislators with new tools to punish their adversaries and reward their allies. All taxes create a burden and hiding them does not lessen their impact upon the citizenry or the State’s economy.

    3) Parental Choice: Do you support protecting parental choice in education and expanding it to all pupils and parents?

    ANSWER: The State’s failure to deliver anything that might be considered “equal educational outcomes” for the youth of our State, even after the draconian Act 60 mandates (a result of the Justice Dooley’s fraudulent Brigham Decision) which enslaved property owners to paying for educational decisions which their votes had no effect on controlling. Local control was the only control taxpayers had on educational expenses and student opportunities. The State should have lost its right to oversee our educational process years ago and it is now the time to return the rights and obligations for the education of the youth of our State to the townspeople to whom our State Constitution assigns those duties to. Vermont Constitution Chapter II § 68.
    After substantial consideration on the issue, I have become convinced that the best solution is to return the education of children in grades K-6 in communities schools as close as possible to the townspeople and most importantly the parents AND provide universal parental choice for the decisions relating to the educational opportunities for grades 7 – 12. Geographic location of a student’s home should not elevate nor diminish the educational opportunities available to our State’s youth – universal choice will ensure the parents have control over their children’s futures.

    Vermont Constitution Chapter II § 68 – Laws to Encourage Virtue and Prevent Vice; Schools; Religious Activities.

    Laws for the encouragement of virtue and prevention of vice and immorality ought to be constantly kept in force, and duly executed; and a competent number of schools ought to be maintained in each town unless the general assembly permits other provisions for the convenient instruction of youth. All religious societies, or bodies of people that may be united or incorporated for the advancement of religion and learning, or for other pious and charitable purposes, shall be encouraged and protected in the enjoyment of the privileges, immunities, and estates, which they in justice ought to enjoy, under such regulations as the general assembly of this state shall direct.

    4) School Consolidation: Do you support Act 46 of 2015, which requires consolidation of town school districts into larger unified districts?

    ANSWER: Act 46 of 2015 is a law which boldly and intentionally violates the “local control” of the educational decisions for the youth of each town (and city) provided by Vermont’s Constitution. The Vermont Legislature and Governor Scott chose to violate the mandate of 68,000 Vermonters who overwhelmingly voted (by an 8:1 margin) through the Constitutional Referendum of 1964 to strengthen the rights of local school boards to oversee the educational decisions of their youth. If there is still any rule of law and citizen’s reliance on the authority of the Vermont Constitution I not misplaced, the Supreme Court will soon rule that Act 46, in its entirety, violates Chapter II, Section 68, the Education Clause, of the Vermont Constitution and that the law is null and void. Additionally, the Court should rule that the Brigham Decision as written by our activist Justice John Dooley was base on the premise that the Education Clause was unamended since 1793 and thus his reliance on a vestigial remnant of history will require the Court to overturn Brigham. (Paige v. State of Vermont, et al., Supreme Court Docket 2018 -164 is currently being scheduled for oral argument before the Court, most probably during October.)

    5) Minimum Wage: Do you support a state law requiring that all employers pay their employees $15 an hour by 2020?

    ANSWER: The fifteen dollar minimum wage is a political ploy by liberal Democrats to win favor among some in the working class and advocates for “social justice” who fail to comprehend the real issues and problems.

    First any minimum wage marginalizes the value of individual effort and excellence by providing a “standard” which fails to account for the productivity of the individual employee. Employers use the minimum wage as their baseline for compensation, often to the exclusion of the consideration of a worker’s productivity – some may perform at a level that fails to provide the employer with any return on the wages paid, while many may be producing at a level far above their compensation – since the employer cannot reward each employee based upon their productivity alone, the highly productive workers find themselves, through their labors, subsidizing the wages of the underproduces.

    Beyond the truism that no good comes from governmental interference; even a fifteen dollar minimum wage fails to provide a sustainable baseline for income that provides a “livable” wage.
    Here in Vermont the wage level necessary to be self-sustaining is about $21/hr. ($27/hr. in Chittenden Co.) – thus $15/hr. minimum wage fails to fulfil the intended purpose of providing workers with a “living wage.” Further, increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr. will result in many on public assistance losing important state and federal benefits as their wages will exceed limits imposed on those benefit programs.

    The answer is a minimum wage of $21/hr. with the elimination of all public assistance. Clearly, this burden could not and should not be borne by the employers, rather as part of the higher minimum wage scheme, the State would provide the employer with subsidies equal to the difference between the current minimum wage of 10.50/hr and the new higher level of $21/hr – i.e. $6.50/hr. This would not be a permanent subsidy and would follow a declining schedule over time as the new employee gains experience and assumes responsibility and productivity. This would not be a significant additional cost to the government as the funds currently being expended for public assistance would now be used to provide the wage subsidies and would decline over time.

    Additionally, the $15 minimum wage has proven to be a significant barrier for youth and new, inexperienced entrants into the workplace. Many are so inexperienced that employers refuse to hire an employee who will not be able to “carry their weight” for many months as it is a burden the employer cannot afford. The establishment of a sliding scale “starter” wage, where the rate rises over time until it meets the established minimum wage , is the best solution to this problem.
    There are no simple answers to this complex and persistent problem

    6) Parental Leave: Do you support mandating employers of more than 10 employees to offer 12 weeks of parental leave per year, for pregnancy, birth, adoption or serious illness, paid for by a payroll tax paid by all covered employers?

    ANSWER: While I support some form of parental leave, a reoccurring 12 weeks per year is a recipe for abuse and failure – suddenly a special benefit, an opportunity to be enjoyed as frequently as possible. Like the PTO time many private employers provide where the employees make sure every possible opportunity is exploited to the fullest. If the employee believes they have paid for the benefit, they will seek to enjoy the benefit every chance they get. Add the 12 weeks a year for parental leave; on top of employer provide sick time, personal time off (PTO) and vacation time, and employee productivity plummets. Additionally, the minimal .136% payroll tax rates currently being suggested CANNOT sustain the program described. The rate realistically must be nearer 5% to provide the necessary revenue to allow an employee 12 weeks of family leave even if it were only accessed every third year or significant State subsidies would be required to cover the shortfall.

    7) Energy Mandate: Do you support the state adopting whatever regulations, mandates, subsidies and taxes may be required to make 90 percent of all energy used in Vermont come from renewable sources, such as wind, solar and hydro, by 2050?

    ANSWER: The 90% renewables by 2050 is a “pie in the sky” dream following the current plans and projections. The fact is that Vermont’s Carbon Footprint has increased in recent years as the State and Green Energy enthusiasts have pursued their “black billboards” and ridge line industrial wind rampage. Additionally, Vermont’s landscape has been permanently scarred by the eyesores created by these industrial installations, potentially harming Vermont’s tourism industry.

    Further, the benefits accrued from reduced Carbon Emissions have been transferred to other states in the form of Renewable Energy Credits (REC) sold to the highest bidder to allow those entities purchasing the “credits” to continue or increase their pollution output !

    Much of Vermont’s increased pollution output is a direct result of the premature closure of Vermont Yankee which was providing Vermont with nearly 60% of its electricity pollution free from the 1973 until its closing in 2016. (4,703 GWh annually) Interestingly, Vermont currently has the potential opportunity to replace much of the lost output form Vermont Yankee by approving the New England Clean Power Link currently proposed by TDI New England. The rejection of the Northern Pass project by northern New Hampshire citizens has renewed this opportunity for Vermont. By mandating a third cable being added to the project with the additional power dedicated to the Vermont Grid – Vermont would become 90% renewable by 2020 not 2050 without one more destructive industrial wind turbine or field of “black billboards” blighting out countryside and providing electricity at below market rates for the foreseeable future.

    Finally, I do not support the current power grab by the Green Energy profiteers – I support the logical choice of the New England Clean Energy Link enhanced to provide Vermont with abundant low-cost, hydro-electric power.

    8) Carbon Tax: Do you support enactment of a carbon tax on fossil fuels, such as natural gas, heating oil, gasoline, diesel fuel and propane, with the net revenues used to subsidize renewable energy production and the electric bills of low income and rural Vermonters (The ESSEX Plan)?

    ANSWER: Vermont is still one of the lowest carbon polluters in the nation, even the promoters of the Carbon Tax admit that it will not significantly reduce our state’s carbon footprint. They explain that we must enact this repressive tax to act as an example for others to follow – “values bragging” to be precise !

    This is just the latest power grabbing, tax punishing scheme by wealthy “Trustafarians” and Green Energy profiteers who, through their “reverse Robin Hood” scheme, wish to rob from the poor and working class to give to their chosen friends and beneficiaries ! The subsidies they proport to distribute to poor and rural users comes with a 25 – 30% “haircut” skimmed off for their favorite projects and promoters.

    9) Land Use Regulation: Do you support making a proposed development achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions a condition for obtaining a permit under Act 250, to combat “climate change”?

    ANSWER: Anything that is attached to the phrase (manmade) “Climate Change” can be considered as fraudulent from the outset, in the same way that the religion of Albert Gore which spawned the Global Warming / Global Cooling fraud in the first place. The Earth’s climate changes, it always has, it always will – humans have an infanticidally small impact on these changes. Natural events, far beyond the control of mere humans drive changes in our weather and climate – volcanic eruptions, sun spots and solar flares are the greatest variables that cause changes in the atmosphere.

    The only level of “proposed development” that will result in “net zero” carbon dioxide emissions would be zero development – the disastrous development policies of the past emboldened to condemn Vermont to becoming the nation’s first statewide wilderness within a generation except for those industrial wind installations that may well blight Vermont’s vistas forever.

    10) Pension Fund Solvency: Do you support the voting additional funds beyond the “annual required contributions” to the State Employees and Teachers Retirement Funds, in order to work down the present $4.5 billion unfunded liability?

    ANSWER: I guess I’m not the only one troubled by the fact that this unfunded liability exceeds the state’s annual revenue, net of Federal funds provided to the state. This issue cannot continue to be “kicked down the road.” There must be flexibility on the part of all stakeholders in resolving this problem and plotting a course toward fully funding the Retirement Accounts within a fixed time frame – possibly 10 – 15 years. “Voting additional funds” really means expecting current taxpayers and state employees to “pony up” the cash for the financial shortfall “sins” of past administrations and legislators. The true resolution is finding a combination of increased fund balances and reductions in liabilities (obligations).

    11) Health Insurance Mandate: Do you support the state levying special taxes or fines — or suspending drivers, hunting and fishing, and other licenses — upon individuals who refuse to purchase state-approved health insurance on the Vermont Health Connect exchange?

    ANSWER: What the Heck ! Have Vermonters been transported to the old USSR (communist Russia for you younger readers) ! This extortion scheme must be a scheme dreamed up my the mafia of old or the new age thinkers of the Socialist who have entrenched themselves in the legislative seats of the “golden dome!”

    “Just Say No !” To the extortion schemes of the political left – they do not seek to protect anything except their own positions of power !

    12) Health Care Reorganization: Do you support creating a mandatory-participation “All Payer” health care system whereby Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance carriers pay a large “Accountable Care Organization” of hospitals, clinics and doctors to manage the health care of the families they cover?

    ANSWER: No ! No ! . . . a thousand times No ! All Payer, Single Payer, Mandated Care are all just different names for the same thing Socialized Medicine, where everyone will be guaranteed a minimal level or mediocre care and will incentivize minimalist care and treatment under the ever-watchful eyes of accountants and bureaucrats assigned to maintain a balanced budget not productive treatment outcomes. Medicine by the numbers, a formula for disaster where the most cost effective is a quick and (hopefully) painless death.

    The most effective steps to immediately improve the efficiency and productivity of healthcare system in Vermont are: 1) expand the marketplace for both insurance and treatment by removing all barriers to interstate competition; 2) eliminate the Certificate of Need process that allows current providers to delay or block the entry of competitors into the marketplace (artificially keeping healthcare cost high and reducing the number of providers available to render services, potentially creating shortages, delays and reduced quality of service); 3) create community-based family health centers to provide those without healthcare insurance with a low cost treatment option (and allowing the diversion of patients with insurance issues away from expensive emergency room services); 4) Reverse the trend toward provider consolidation by the large hospital providers which is resulting in a reduction in convenient access and longer wait times; 5) Consumer (patient) protection which should include a public rating of providers and requiring all providers, including pharmacists, to publish a pricing schedule for services provided – to allow a high degree of transparency for patients to make intelligent “purchase” decisions. The open pricing schedules should include not only treatment costs, but drug pricing and durable devices costs for both purchase and rentals as well.

    13) Gun Control: Do you support repeal of the provision of Act 94 of 2018 that makes it illegal for an individual to possess a firearms magazine holding more than 10 rounds for a rifle or 15 rounds for a handgun (unless they possessed the magazine before Oct. 1, 2018)?

    ANSWER: Vermont Executive, Legislature and Judiciary officials have taken oaths to uphold, defend (and do nothing offensive to) to the U.S. and Vermont State Constitutions. Act 94 violates both Constitutions by restricting various aspects of gun ownership. Beyond the magazine capacity issue, which I view as the least egregious, the Act has numerous new regulations and prohibition which violate both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 16 of Vermont’s Constitution, including:

    20 V.S.A. § 2307 which was amended to require the Relinquishing of firearms by those citizens subject to a relief for abuse order.

    13 V.S.A. § 4019 substantially changed and complicated the sale or transfer of ownership of firearms, further this statute includes significant expansion of the regulations relating to firearm background checks and elongates times required to complete said clearances.

    13 V.S.A. § 4020 was amended to restrict the right of adult persons under the age of 21 years of age to purchase or possess handguns and rifles.

    These changes to the law were rushed through the legislature and the executive branch in a knee-jerk reaction to the school shooting in Florida and a potential concern over a threat of a potential similar event in a Vermont school, which proved to be more the delusional musings of a disturbed student than an imminent threat. This is the precise reason we have a process and a
    Constitution that is intended to insulate and moderate the law from the political passions of a moment in time !

    14) Mandatory Seat Belt Usage: Do you support allowing law enforcement to issue tickets to adult drivers, who are not otherwise committing an offense, for driving without a buckled seat belt?

    ANSWER: This is clearly an overreach of government into the personal affairs of the individual. Vermonters have accepted the mandate of requiring the restraint of young children in car seats and older children to be belted in the rear seats only (due to the dangers posed by airbag device deployment for children and adults “of small stature” seated in the front seats).

    Statistics consistently indicate that seat belt use provides protection far in excess of any potential dangers, however adults should not be coerced into using them with the threat of fines and other penalties. There is a perception that these laws (rules) permitting drivers to be pulled over and cited are not implemented merely to improve compliance, rather to provide law enforcement with an additional reason to stop drivers they suspect may be committing other offences or are being sought for prior offences (warrants, unresolved fines, etc.). Many who feel the police are discriminating against them because of the fact that their vehicle may be older or that their appearance, hairstyle, clothing, race or skin color have influenced the police to look for an excuse to investigate them with their seat belt use providing the justification to stop them.

    While the threat of citation for disuse of seat belts as a secondary offense should be sufficient to encourage usage, I have always believed that allowing insurance companies to pay reduced compensation in cases where injury was attributable to disuse of seat belts would be a far more effective incentive to ensure compliance.

    15) Marijuana: Do you support setting up a state-regulated system for the retail sale and taxation of marijuana?

    ANSWER: I have previously expressed my support for the legalization, regulation, taxation and commercialization of cannabis in 2012 – in the wake of the experiences of Colorado and Washington States, I have significantly moderated my “embrace” of the commercialization aspect. I still believe that legalization (possession) of small quantities non-GMO cannabis should allow law enforcement to concentrate of investigation and prosecution of more dangerous drugs and psychoactive substances (bath salts, designer drug compounds, etc.). The wholesale commercialization of Marijuana will clearly lead to the same problems our State and the nation are confronting with tobacco and alcohol consumption – except Marijuana use combines the worst of both. Marijuana use results in the long-term issues of addiction and respiratory damage caused by tobacco AND the addiction and physiological impairment issues caused by alcohol consumption.

    I believe that legalization should have been accompanied by process for providing adults with a way to legally acquire plant seeds to “grow their own” AND to purchase unenhanced (non-GMO) Marijuana for personal consumption – in order to effectively reduce or eliminate the profitability by the illegal drug trade. An important aspect of legalization was to inflict financial injury to the drug trade in Vermont, however legalization without providing a legal source has only enlivened the business for the illegal dealers; defeating this important aspect of the law.

    Yes, I support the limited, highly regulated system for the retail sale of (and taxation of) marijuana and plant seeds for growing. I do not support the commercialization of the substance for the same reason we are currently curtailing the promotion of tobacco – to discourage the expanded use by those who currently do not use the product, especially by the youth. The dreams of untapped revenues for the state coffers are a mere illusion as it is clear that, in the long run, any increase in State revenues will be overwhelmed by the added costs and expenses the State (society) will experience from the deleterious health and societal effects.

    Separately, I am aware that there is a body of evidence that both Marijuana and CBD oil have potential as low impact medical treatments for a variety of illnesses and ailments, and I believe that both substances should be provided to patients where their use is suggested based upon medical evidence.

    16) Ballot Reform: Do you support changing election law so that voters would cast a single “one big choice” vote for their preferred governor-lieutenant governor team, and the Legislature would elect the treasurer, secretary of state, auditor and attorney general as they do the adjutant general?

    ANSWER: Most of the changes suggested in this question are governed by the Vermont Constitution and merely “changing election laws” would be radically insufficient to implement those changes.

    With that caveat in mind, we live in a representative republic and an important control over the three branches of government is found at the ballot box – in fact, it is often the only check the citizens have over elected officials. Suggesting that the choice of the treasurer, secretary of state, auditor (of accounts) and attorney general (and I assume soon after the State’s Attorneys) should be placed in the hands of the legislature is absurd !

    One needs to look no further than the process by which judges and justices are appointed to the State’s Courts to discover the lack of accountability and control such a reliance on the judgement of the General Assembly would provide in selecting and retaining the listed officials.

    Vermont already has an acute problem with the incumbency of those who serve in the General Assembly (House and Senate) in that once “installed” in their offices the incumbents become all by intractable despite their missteps or misbehavior. Now imagine all of the officers mention in the question, suddenly being insulated from the concerns and complaints of the electorate. The gold standard example of this problem, in recent years, was the notorious Attorney General William Sorrell who, despite his daily “missteps” was impossible to dislodge from his perch on the third floor of the Pavilion Building for 17 years. Sorrell wasn’t even initially elected to office, rather he was appointed by his childhood friend Howard Dean to fill the vacancy provide by the appointment of the then-A/G Jeffrey Amestoy to Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court in 1997 and once in office Sorrell could do no wrong sufficient to lose an election (personally I believed that had Sorrell have shot an innocent dead in the middle of State Street at noon on a workday, he probably could have easily gotten himself reelected.)

    As to the “team” election of the governor and lieutenant governor, in the same fashion as we elect the U.S. President and Vice President, this is an idea worthy of consideration, however it would require amending the State Constitution and would receive a thorough review before being sent to the voters for their approval by referendum. (Remember that the premature passing of Governor Snelling “blessed” Vermont with the reign of Howard Dean and this may well be the best possible example of why the “team” idea may be valid)

    Unasked, but worth mentioning – I adamantly oppose the elongation of time for the terms of service of elected officials from the current Constitutional limit of two years for statewide offices and members of the State Senate and House of Representatives. The citizens need more accountability not less and the ballot box is still the most effective check on the behavior of governmental officials – the two-year time-frame provides the citizen-voters with a regular opportunity for review of the officials – if their job performance is satisfactory, they can count on an easy reelection; if their performance has proven unsatisfactory they should expect to be shown the door.

    CONCLUSION

    I hope that my answers to John’s questions provides some insight into my stands on the issues. I hope that my views may prompt you further consideration of the issues and you’ll to do additional research on your own. Since I am seeking the Secretary of State office thses questions, while very interesting to all Vermonters are not the primary issues at the heart of my campaign. BTW – I would really appreciate you support and your vote on November 6th.

    H. Brooke Paige
    Republican Candidate for Secretary of State.
    Washington, Vermont

  3. True North should submit these questions to all Vermont political office candidates and publish their responses (or lack thereof) in a database linked to this web site.

  4. Some just prefer to lie,governor Benedict Scott had no qualms in lying or violating his oath,so reward him with reelection.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *