Chip Carter, a retired television anchor, moved in 2016 to Guilford, where he volunteers with a number of community organizations and serves on the Selectboard.
As another Vermont election approaches, the debate over affordability is once again turning into a debate over who is to blame.
I’m a Democrat. But I have grown increasingly concerned about the part Vermont’s Legislature has played in making the state more expensive to live in.
Gov. Phil Scott should answer for his record after nearly a decade in office. But the Legislature should not get a free pass for the taxes, spending and mandates it has passed—especially during the two years when Democrats and Progressives had enough votes in both chambers to repeatedly override the governor’s vetoes.
Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun, D-Windham 3, recently described Scott as “the veto master,” saying legislators are looking for someone they can work with. Scott’s veto record is substantial. But Bos-Lun and her colleagues are veto masters as well, setting a Vermont record for overrides.
During 2023 and 2024, lawmakers overrode Scott’s vetoes 12 times — six times each year. So the question is not simply how often Scott used his veto pen. It is what legislators did when they had the votes to pass bills without him.
Property taxes provide perhaps the clearest example. In 2024, Scott vetoed H.887, the annual education property tax bill. The Legislature overrode him, 103–42 in the House and 22–7 in the Senate. The bill was expected to produce an average 13.8% increase in property tax bills statewide.
There were many reasons for rising school costs. But the political sequence is straightforward. Scott objected. Legislators had the votes to pass the bill without him. And they did.
Child care brought another new cost. Scott vetoed Act 76 in 2023, and lawmakers overrode him. The law expanded Vermont’s child care system and created a 0.44% payroll tax on Vermont wages. Supporters can point to expanded assistance for families and increased support for providers. But it also created a continuing statewide payroll tax.
Then came the Affordable Heat Act. Scott vetoed it in 2023. The Legislature overrode him and directed regulators to design a Clean Heat Standard. The Public Utility Commission later estimated that the potential program could cost about $956 million over its first 10 years while also identifying potential benefits. The Legislature ultimately did not approve the rule needed to put the program fully into effect.
In 2024, Scott vetoed H.289, expanding Vermont’s Renewable Energy Standard. Lawmakers overrode him again. The Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office estimated implementation costs of $150 million to $450 million through 2035, while emphasizing considerable uncertainty in that estimate.
The Legislature also passed Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act in 2024, seeking to make large fossil fuel companies pay part of the state’s climate-related costs. Scott allowed it to become law without his signature. The law is now the subject of federal litigation.
There are other affordability pressures I did not have room to explore fully. Vermont’s individual-market health insurance premiums are currently the highest in the country. Healthcare is a much larger and more complicated issue than any one legislative session, but it belongs in Vermont’s affordability discussion.
Act 181 is another example of how ambitious policy can produce a complicated aftermath. Scott vetoed the 2024 legislation and the Legislature overrode him. In 2026, lawmakers returned to it and repealed several significant provisions enacted two years earlier.
None of this means legislators acted in bad faith.
I believe most legislators sincerely thought they were pursuing policies that would make Vermont better—whether on childcare, climate, housing, renewable energy or education. But the supermajority changed the governing dynamic. Scott’s objections could increasingly be treated as something to override rather than something that necessarily had to be negotiated.
There was also plainly a partisan element. In many of the major votes, the outcome was predictable as long as Democrats and Progressives remained united. That is not proof that every vote was dictated by party leadership, but it is partisan institutional politics.
That dynamic probably became self-reinforcing. The Legislature viewed Scott as obstructing its agenda: it had the votes to bypass him, and both sides became increasingly combative and increasingly willing to blame the other.
Not every affordability problem is the Legislature’s fault. Act 127, Vermont’s 2022 school-finance overhaul, was passed by lawmakers and signed by Scott. Both branches own that decision. The governor proposes budgets, signs bills and runs state agencies. After nearly a decade in office, Scott has plenty to answer for.
But accountability has to go both ways.
For two years, the Legislature held the final power to enact policies over the governor’s objections. Scott could veto, criticize, and propose alternatives, but once lawmakers had two-thirds, they could pass legislation without him — and repeatedly did.
You can support the goals behind these laws—better childcare, well-funded schools, more housing, renewable energy and reduced greenhouse-gas emissions—while still asking what the policies cost, whether they worked as intended and who made the decisions.
Scott’s vetoes are part of his record. The Legislature’s votes, taxes, spending, mandates, and overrides are part of its record.
The people holding the power to enact laws also have to own the consequences of the laws they pass. Vermont’s affordability debate should not stop at the governor’s office.
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.