Rep. Edward Read, Washington

District: Duxbury, Fayston, Moretown, Waitsfield,Warren
Party: Independent
Contact Information:
92 Fire Pond Lane
Fayston, VT 05673
[email protected]
(802) 279-5016
Contact Local Paper(s):
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

EAI Roll Call Profiles provide a record of how legislators voted on key issues. The profiles are designed to be an educational tool, giving insight into the kinds of policies each representative supports and opposes. These bills did not necessarily become law.


$5.9 Billion FY19 Budget (H.924). Passed 117-14 on May 12, 2018. The “Big Bill” budget for FY19 totaled $5,861,048,670 an increase of a little over 1% from the FY18 budget. General Fund spending shows a decline of 17.2%, from $1.6 billion to just under $1.3 billion, but this is only because the legislature eliminated the General Fund transfer to the education fund, replacing that money from other sources. The “apples to apples” growth in spending is 2.5%. READ – YES

House Passes $59 million Income Tax Increase/Property Tax Cut (H.911) Passed 85-54 on March 21, 2018. This was a two-part bill. The first part shifts some responsibility for funding Vermont’s pre-k-12 education system from the property tax to the income tax. The second part negates an unintended $30 million tax increase resulting from changes in the federal tax code. Part 1 includes a $59 million income tax increase, called a “surcharge,” eliminates the current General Fund transfer to the Education Fund, and dedicates 100% of the sales and use tax to the Education Fund. This allows for a cut in homestead property tax rates of 15 cents/$100 of assessed value. Part 2 lowers each of Vermont’s marginal tax rates for personal income taxes by at least 0.2%, expands the earned-income tax credit, and eliminates the tax on Social Security benefits for Vermonters with less than $55,000 in income. Those voting YES are in favor of reducing the reliance on the property tax for the purpose of funding pre-k-12 education spending, and shifting that burden to the income tax, which they believe better reflects ability to pay. Those voting NO note that H.911 does not address education spending, it merely shifts the costs without reducing or curbing the total tax burden. The income tax surcharge will give Vermont the third highest marginal income tax rate in the nation. The income tax is historically a volatile revenues source, and ill-suited for education funding. The shift to income taxes is unfair to renters who end up paying higher income taxes but get no property tax relief. This new funding scheme is unfair to 30,000 non-residents who chose to work in Vermont and will now be paying this new education tax with not compensating property tax decrease. H.911 leaves all the complexity of the current system in place (CLA, per pupil spending, income sensitivity etc.), and adds even more complexity by introducing new income tax surcharge. And, finally, object to the tactic of tying two unrelated ideas together in one bill, holding tax relief hostage to a shift to the income tax to pay for education. READ – ABSENT

$16 Million Payroll Tax for Paid Family Leave (H.196) Passed 90-53 on May 11, 2018. H.196 would levy a 0.136% ($16.3 million) payroll tax on employees to pay for a state-mandated, government-run family leave insurance program. However, if the demand for the benefit exceeds the amount raised at this rate, the legislature will have to adjust the rate upward to raise enough revenue to cover the cost. Those voting YES supported the program, believing it will make Vermont more “family friendly” and appealing to young workers. Those voting NO see this as another burdensome “mandate from Montpelier” on businesses, that the tax rate has been set artificially low and will have to be raised, and that this bill levies a $16.3 million tax on all working Vermonters, even though only a fraction of them will have occasion or the ability to benefit from the program. READ – YES

$15 Minimum Wage (S.40). Passed 77-60 on May 18, 2018. S.40 would raise Vermont’s minimum wage from the current $10.50/hr. to $15/hr. by the year 2024.Those voting YES believe this will benefit low income workers and help to close the “income inequality” gap. Those voting NO believe that such a large and rapid increase in the cost of labor will harm Vermont businesses, the overall economy, as well as the workers the bill was meant to help due to cutbacks in hours, lost benefits, and/or lost jobs as employers struggle to maintain budgets. Additionally, a majority of Vermonters living in low income households, especially poor senior citizens, do not report wage income. While their incomes would be unaffected by the minimum wage increase, their cost of living would rise due to higher prices for goods and services due to the artificial wage increase being passed along to consumers. READ – YES

$6.4 Million Tax Package to Fund Lake Clean Up (S.260). Passed 92-48 on May 4, 2018. S.260 would raise $6.4 million in new revenue, primarily from a $4.55 million increase in the state rooms and meals tax (from 9% to 9.25%). The rest, $1.94 million, would come via the confiscation of revenue from unclaimed bottle/can deposits, which is currently the property of the beverage distributors and used by them to defray the costs of managing recycling programs. These taxes would not take effect until 2020, and only then if the legislature does not find another source of funding. Those voting YES believe higher taxes are necessary to fund water quality improvements. Those voting NO believe that water quality improvements should be funded with existing resources, not tax increases, that they should especially not be funded in a way that discourages tourism, such as increasing the rooms and meals tax, or in a way that punishes industries (tourism and beverage distribution) that do not contribute measurably to water pollution problem and, in the case of the unclaimed deposit money, actually help maintain a clean environment through recycling programs. READ – ABSENT

Mandate That Vermonters Buy Health Insurance (H.696). Passed 118-16 on May 12, 2018. The primary objective of H.696 is to require individual Vermonters to purchase and maintain “minimum essential [health insurance] coverage” for themselves and any dependent or pay a penalty to the state beginning in the 2020 plan year. However, legislators do not know how this would work or how it would be enforced, so the bill also creates the “Individual Mandate Working Group” to figure it out. Those voting YES support forcing Vermonters to purchase health insurance as doing so will help keep overall insurance premiums lower. Those voting NO do not support a state mandate to purchase health insurance, assert that forcing citizens to purchase a product from a private company is government overreach, and note that the mandate will make Vermont less affordable for young people, who we are supposedly trying to attract. READ – YES

Gun Control Measures (S.55). Passed 89-54 on March 27, 2018. S.55 raises the age for long gun purchases to 21, mandates background checks for nearly all private firearm sales, bans magazines holding more than fifteen rounds, and bans bump stocks. Those voting YES believe these measures will result in safer communities by reducing gun violence. Those voting NO believe that these measures will have no measurable impact on safety or violence, create excessive burdens on law abiding gun owners, are largely unenforceable, and violate Vermont’s constitutional guarantee of the “right to bear arms for the defence of themselves….” READ – YES

Legalization of Recreational Marijuana (H.511). Passed 81-63 on January 4, 2018. H.511 legalizes possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for use by people 21 and older and allows possession of four immature and two mature marijuana plants. Those voting YES support the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. Those voting NO do not support the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. READ – YES

Increase Fee on Telecommunication Bills (H.582). Passed 109-27 on February 16, 2018. S.582 increases the surcharge that appears on Vermonters’ telecommunications bills from 2 to 2.5 percent, which amounts an estimated $6.3 million fee increase. The raise would sunset in four years (2022). The money collected from this increase will be transferred to the Connectivity Fund, which distributes grants to internet service providers that expand networks in underserved areas. Those voting YES believe these additional funds are necessary to connect all Vermonters to the internet. Those voting NO believe that Vermonters cannot afford any more taxes/fees, note that the Connectivity Fund has a history of being raided for other purposes, and that there is no clear plan for how the money would be spent to achieve the stated objective. READ – YES

Give Taxpayer Funded Legal Counsel to Those Challenging Immigration Status (S.237). Passed on April 10, 2018, by a vote of 97-40. S.237 allows state-paid public defenders, including the Defender General, to provide legal help to immigrants on immigration issues in the federal court system. Those voting YES believe that immigrants and farm workers residing in Vermont should have access to taxpayer funded representation in federal court “in or with respect to a matter arising out of or relating to immigration status.” Those voting NO believe that giving Vermont’s Defender General more responsibilities without increased funding would put a strain on that government office. There is already a backlog of cases, and the Defender General would have to reallocate resources away from other vital government functions in order to provide this service. The federal court system already offers court-appointed legal counsel, and there is no reason for the state to duplicate this service. READ – YES

Ban More Appliances Via Efficiency Standards (H.410). Passed 137-4 on January 31, 2018. H.410 applies efficiency standards established in 2014 to over a dozen new products, including showerheads, computers and telephones. Those voting YES believe that some consumer goods are too energy-intensive, and that Vermonters should not be allowed to purchase them. Those voting NO believe that Vermonters should be allowed to decide for themselves the costs and benefits of the appliances they purchase. READ – YES


About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.

Latest News

VT Left Wing Media Bias Unmasks Itself

July 24, 2020 By Rob Roper Dave Gram was a long time reporter for the Associated Press, is currently the host of what’s billed on WDEV as a...

Using Guns for Self Defense – 3 Recent Examples

July 24, 2020 By John McClaughry  The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal last week published eleven news stories about citizens using a firearm to stop a crime. Here are...

FERC ruling on solar subsidies could help Vermont ratepayers

July 21, 2020 By John McClaughry Last Thursday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finalized its updates to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), in what the majority...

The Moderate Left’s Stand for Free Speech

July 17, 2020 By David Flemming Harper’s Magazine, a long-running monthly magazine of literature, politics, culture, finance, and the arts, is hardly what you would call a ‘politically...

Trump’s Regulatory Bill of Rights

July 16, 2020 by John McClaughry “President Trump [last May] issued an executive order entitled  ‘Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery.’ The executive order includes a regulatory bill...