Lawmakers refusing to support common sense property tax proposal bankrolled by the Vermont-NEA

Berlin, VT— During the 2016 election, the Vermont NEA financially backed one-third of the Democratic and Progressive lawmakers who voted against and continue to block Governor Scott’s proposal to save up to $26 million annually for property taxpayers. Additionally, they spent tens of thousands of dollars bank rolling the Vermont Democratic Party and the Democratic Governors Association’s Vermont-based Super PAC.

Governor Scott’s proposal would achieve up to $75 million in annual savings by implementing a new statewide health benefit for school employees.  Nearly $49 million of the $75 million in savings would be used to ensure school employees aren’t paying more out-of-pocket, leaving up to $26 million to be returned to hardworking Vermonters through property tax relief. The legislation is strongly supported by both the Vermont School Boards Association and the Vermont Superintendents Association, and would be a win-win for both school employees and taxpayers. In fact, this proposal has such broad-based support, that when brought to the Democratic supermajority in the House for a floor vote, there  was a tie! But Speaker Mitzi Johnson single handedly killed the bill by casting a rare tie-breaking vote. 

In addition to Speaker Johnson, many of the Democratic and Progressive lawmakers who voted against this common-sense proposal were financially backed by the NEA in the 2016 elections! 

The VT-NEA has been the most vocal lobbying group (spending tens of thousands of dollars in paid media!) against the Governor’s proposal, despite the fact that teachers would see premium reductions, lesser or equal out-of-pocket costs, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont confirmed that the actuarial values of the new VEHI plans would be higher than their current plans. So why doesn’t the Democratic Leadership like this plan? Because they have been bought and paid for!

The truth is, Democratic and Progressive lawmakers in Montpelier are playing politics with YOUR money by putting the interests of their donors ahead of the interests of their constituents and taxpayers all across Vermont.

Below is a list of the Democratic and Progressive legislators who received money from the NEA in 2016 and voted against Governor Scott’s proposal:





Rep. Amy Sheldon (D)


Rep. Diane Lanpher (D)


Rep. RachaelFields (D)


Rep. Joseph “Chip” Troiano (D)


Rep. Terence Macaig (D)


Rep. Jim McCullough (D)


Rep. Trevor Squirrell (D)


Rep. Jill Krowinski (D)


Rep. Diana Gonzalez (P)


Rep. Selene Colburn (P/D)


Rep. Ann Pugh (D)

Grand Isle-Chittenden

Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D)


Rep. Cindy Weed (P/D)


Rep. Matthew Hill (D)


Rep. Daniel Noyes (D)


Rep. David Yacovone (D)


Rep. Sarah Copeland-Hanzas (D)


Rep. Mary Howard (D)


Rep. Tommy Walz (D)


Rep. Paul Poirier (I)


Rep Tristan Toleno (D)


Rep. Alice Emmons (D)


Rep. Robert Forguites (D)


Rep. Gabrielle Lucke (D)

Chittenden Senate

Sen. Tim Ashe (P/D)

Chittenden Senate

Sen. Phil Baruth (D/P)

Chittenden Senate

Sen. Debbie Ingram (D)

Chittenden Senate

Sen. Ginny Lyons (D)

Chittenden Senate

Sen. Chris Pearson (P/D)

Chittenden Senate

Sen. Michael Sirotkin (D)

Orange Senate

Sen. Mark MacDonald (D)

Washington Senate

Sen Ann Cummings (D)

Washington Senate

Sen. Anthony Polina (P/D)

Windsor Senate

Sen. Dick McCormack (D)

Windsor Senate

Sen. Alice Nitka (D)

In total, the NEA donated over $110,000 to Vermont Democratic organizations, candidates, and PACs in the 2016 election cycle alone. This includes $4,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party, and $75,000 to a Vermont Democratic Super PAC.

By voting with their donors rather than with their constituents, these representatives are putting politics ahead of principles. YOU can help make a difference by calling the Sergeant-At-Arms office at (802) 828-2228 and leaving a message telling your lawmakers to support Governor Scott’s common sense plan today! OR, you can contact your lawmakers directly here.

5 thoughts on “Lawmakers refusing to support common sense property tax proposal bankrolled by the Vermont-NEA

  1. First the swamp in DC will be drained.
    The the little mud puddle in Montpelier will dry up.

  2. Employees of the government should be ineligible and not able to be represented by “elected” officials against the interest of non employee beneficiaries, “The “Non Benificiary” tax payer of Collective Bargainings target, “The tax Payer”. They are recipients employees of the treasury of “A State Tax System” designed to take and give elevating the state , municipal and federal employee above the financial interest of the citizenry. therefore captive to the levy against the interest of the non beneficiaries citizens.

    Elected officials representing financial positions on a state wide basis have no business representing collective bargaining recipients employees of the state, while being funded by recipients bennificaries of collective bargaining activities against the electorate.

    The elected official who takes funding to represent a position against the interest of non beneficiaries target of collective bargaining appears in direct conflict to their oath to represent the tax paying citizens fiscal best ability to afford position and offers no accountability for the tax payers ability to pay for a distinct conflict or ability to afford government when government takes the side of the government employee.

    Tax payers are expecting elected officials to protest them from unreasonable expectations of public employees. Unions are against the best interest of the electorate. And the employee of government are the employees of the tax payers, not their bosses. That being said. I am a firm believer in Merit Pay. Because we have some very dedicated public servants. We should be able to get rid of the Public Surpents” with out them being protected by unions or collective bargaining.

  3. VOTES FOR SALE!!! NEA goes where the pickins are easy. DEMOCRATS AND PROGRESSIVE are at the head of the line at the pay window!!! Wonder what the minimum amount is required to buy a vote? Guess it varies by the financial need of the individual.

    • Votes for sale , yes they are and you can get them on the cheap !!
      Just follow the money …………. shameful , they don’t even try to hide
      the fact !! Now you know why the State is in Debt with no help from
      these buffoons !!

  4. Franklin-7 needs to ditch Cindy Weed; all she does is vote the way her Democratic masters tell her to. She claims to support the working people of her district while campaigning, but forgets them quickly. You only won by 15 votes Ms. Weed – that won’t happen again.

Comments are closed.