Letters to the editor: Oct. 31

Expanding child tax credit should be Congress’ first priority

To the Editor:

The child tax credit is a popular topic of conversation these days. Both Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. J.D. Vance have called for expansions of the child tax credit during the presidential election. There’s a good reason why. It works.

When Congress expanded the child tax credit in 2021 and sent it in monthly payments, struggling families finally got a financial breather. Groceries, health care, rent and child care all got a little easier to manage. Not to mention the payments cut child poverty by almost one-third. But Congress let the expanded child tax credit expire and families are again having a harder time and child poverty has increased. 

The candidates know that expanding the child tax credit is both good policy and good politics. After decades of tax cuts for the rich, they know that everyday folks deserve a break. Expanding the child tax credit provides it.

Reforming the tax code will be a big debate in Congress next year. Their first agenda item should be expanding the child tax credit to all families experiencing poverty.

In Vermont, an expanded child tax credit would lift 3,000 children above the poverty line and would further help the families of 96,000, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In a state with a 2023 population of 114,636 children under 18, this credit will make a significant difference for a majority of Vermont children. 

Sen. Peter Welch supported the last version of the bill to expand the child tax credit while Sen. Sanders did not, believing the bill didn’t go far enough. Please join me in encouraging both Sen. Welch and Sen. Sanders to do all they can to pass an expanded child tax credit in the next Congress. As they both well know, the need is critical and we have a tool that works. Let’s use it.

Julia Russell
Charlotte

(Julia Russell is a member of The Charlotte News board and of RESULTS Vermont. RESULTS is a nonpartisan citizens’ advocacy group that works to end poverty.)

Habitat project description was revisionist history

To the Editor:

I read with great interest the article concerning the development project in Hinesburg situated along the banks of the LaPlatte River. I am especially concerned with the way in which David Speidel characterizes the development of the Habitat project on Albert’s Way. Allow me to offer my perspective.

For the 30+ years that my husband, Allan Jordan, had lived and worked in Vermont prior to the Habitat project, he ensured affordable housing for families from as far away as Alburg and Williamstown, to closer projects in towns like Hinesburg and Vergennes. In each project, the Vermont state regulations, as well as those of the communities involved, were strictly respected. Allan had attended the Villanova University school of law. He did his homework.

When the opportunity to address the lack of affordable housing in Charlotte presented itself to us (in the form of advancing age, family illness and death), we decided to pursue a collaboration with Habitat for Humanity to build on land that had been in the Gecewicz family since 1946. Allan and I were not wealthy, nor did we aspire to become so in embarking on this project.

The land where 12 greenhouses had once stood was sold at minimum cost to Habitat. Allan and I contributed the infrastructure costs — road, electric, septic, two wells, landscaping, etc. All these steps required adherence to the state and local building and environmental codes in place at the time.

I would ask Speidel with whom at Habitat he spoke when he quotes someone as saying, “We can’t be picky. We get free land — we build on it.” If only it were that simple.

Allan and I worked very closely with Habitat every step of the way to ensure the adherence to regulations. It was hardly the “let’s-see-what-we-can-get-away-with” approach to land use that one might see in development projects throughout our state.

We live in an ever-changing world, with rules and regulations to match. We continue to move, hopefully more forward than not, according to new evidence provided us through more and more sophisticated methods of exploration. We also contend with the political, social and economic vagaries of a living society. But we continue to move forward, neither fixated upon the past nor stagnant in the present.

Habitat for Humanity is not a perfect organization. It is a work in progress. The Albert’s Way project was born of a commitment to providing decent housing – and pride of ownership – to families who would otherwise not be able to participate in this part of the American dream. The manner in which the project was conceived and executed was thoughtful, sincere and compliant with the parameters set forth by the state and local regulations of the time. Property owners in the area may not like the new neighbors and that is their prerogative. But it does a disservice to the concept of Habitat for Humanity to dismiss the modus operandi of the organization in such a cavalier fashion as to say “we get free land — we build on it.” If only it were that simple.

Trudi Gecewicz Jordan
Charlotte

Malloy’s conduct towards Sanders unbecoming

To the Editor:

Watching the debate last week between these two, I was struck by Gerald Malloy’s hostility toward and visible contempt for Bernie Sanders. As someone who was raised in a multi-generation military family, I felt the retired Army major’s conduct toward Sanders was unbecoming to an officer and gentleman, but I suppose when you cast your lot with today’s GOP, this is your duty.

What struck me even more was Malloy berating Sanders for the national debt and his supposed lack of legislative success. As far as I know, Sanders is the longest-serving independent in the history of Congress, so it makes sense that his legislative work has been less about maneuvering bills to law (as he did with the Veterans Choice Act of 2014, co-sponsored with John McCain) and more about fighting for less popular policies — in Congress at least — while sneaking amendments into larger bills to the benefit of Vermonters and many other middle and working-class Americans.

If Gerald Malloy had been a Vermont voter for longer than two years, he’d probably already know this about Bernie Sanders. He’d also know that Sanders is supremely aware of the sources of spending and debt and has voted against the Bush tax cuts and their extension, as well as the Trump tax cuts, all of which added trillions to the debt.

What’s really funny though is that Malloy would attack Sanders’ long-held beliefs in collectivism and social welfare, because Malloy has benefitted from both for his entire adult life.

As an active duty Army officer, he received free medical, dental and vision care for himself, his wife and four children at any Tricare provider around the world (no restrictions, no networks like the rest of us), in addition to life insurance coverage. This would cost the average Vermont family over $2,000 a month.

As a retiree he and his wife will receive these benefits for life for free, and his children will continue to receive these benefits until they graduate from college. This is after retiring from the Army before he turned 50, at which point he transitioned to a second career as a civilian defense contractor.

Malloy attended West Point as an undergraduate, along with Temple and Georgetown grad schools with 75-100 percent tuition assistance from the Army, an education that would indebt a Vermonter between $200,000 to $300,000. In exchange, he was required to accept a job from which it was nearly impossible to be fired or demoted.

As an active duty officer, Malloy’s children had access to free education or generous tuition assistance, along with free or low-cost childcare. In light of current school tax debates and skyrocketing pre-K costs in Vermont, you may do your own math on this one.

As an active duty officer and retiree, Malloy could insure his family’s cars and property for 35 percentage lower than market rate through USAA, saving thousands of dollars per year.

As a major (his rank at retirement), Malloy received a basic housing allowance that was pegged to the local housing market — in his case, Washington, D.C., the country’s seventh most expensive housing market. If he were this rank and living in D.C. today, his monthly allowance would be over $4,000. Alternatively, his family could live in Army housing for free and have access to walkable towns with government-subsidized grocery stores, playgrounds, well-maintained infrastructure and plenty of open space.

After 22 years of service, Malloy retired with 44 percent of his final base pay for the rest of his life. The average annual base pay for a major with 22 years of service is $116,000 (similar to Sanders’ Senate salary), 44 percent of which is $51,000. This is in addition to the Army’s 5-percent match of savings contributions and is guaranteed even as he receives compensation as a defense contractor.

The overall budget of the Department of Defense in 2023 was $776 billion dollars. The second largest category of this budget supported pay and retirement benefits for service members and cost $184 billion.

After retiring, Malloy worked for Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, whose combined revenue from the U.S. government in 2022 was over $60 billion.

The government has spent approximately $8 trillion dollars in excess military spending since 2000 compared to previous decades, increasing debt as a percentage of GDP by 30-plus percentage points.

All of this comes at the expense of the American taxpayer. All of that military spending comes at the expense of spending on education, healthcare, housing and infrastructure, and Bernie Sanders said as much during the debate.

To paraphrase noted socialist peacenik, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the cost of war is everything else.

So, while I believe that service people deserve every bit of respect and benefit they receive, I also believe that as a serviceman, Gerald Malloy should be more respectful of what it would cost to give real Vermonters a life like he has lived and more humble about what it has already cost real Vermonters to give him that life.

If you want to deploy Malloy, it’s a free country. I personally think Bernie’s the one who’s really ready to fight for us.

Peter Macia
Charlotte

Rodgers is best candidate for lieutenant governor

To the Editor:

I am writing to express my strong support for John Rodgers as the next lieutenant governor of Vermont.

Having previously served as commissioner of Vermont’s Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation for 12 years, appointed by two different governors with a significant legislative portfolio over six legislative biennia, I worked over an extended period with both David Zuckerman and John Rodgers. The differences between them are real and important, and Rodgers emerges clearly as the best choice for Vermont. It’s not close.

During his time in the Senate, he served on two committees with important roles relative to forests, parks and recreation: the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy — with jurisdiction over Vermont Forests, Parks And Recreation’s responsibilities, programs and budget — and the Senate Committee on Institutions — with jurisdiction over capital appropriations and land transactions (think state parks’ infrastructure, ski area leases and land-conservation transactions).

While Rodgers and I certainly differed on some topics over the years, he was a breath of fresh air and a welcome voice of practicality and reality all the while. He listened actively, asked informed and sometimes tough questions (always appropriately and respectfully) and he consistently offered ideas and solutions or, at worst, a willingness to work together to find them.

My experience with David Zuckerman was very different, characterized and summarized best as him doing a lot of talking at me — whether in the Senate Committee on Agriculture or in the hallways in advance of important floor debates in the Senate after he became lieutenant governor. That may seem tough, but it’s fair.

I’ve also come to know John Rodgers more personally as a friend, affording an expanded view of him as a person and his values and ethics. John is smart, fun, talented, honest, hardworking and reliable. He is committed to his family, friends, land and community. Indeed, watching him delight in engaging with our young daughter says it all, whether when fishing with her or touring her around his farm. He was kind and encouraging while also being appropriately clear and firm with her. I continue to marvel at his energy, authenticity and ability to connect with anyone.

I am grateful for John Rodgers’ significant and selfless service to our state to date and for his willingness to run and serve us as lieutenant governor now. When he speaks of unsettling changes in Vermont’s legislative process over the last decade or so — becoming more political and less inclusive — he is spot on. It is real and damaging. And given his experience, personality and commitment to Vermont and all of her people, Rodgers is best equipped and best suited to bring a different, more realistic and truly effective approach to Montpelier.

I encourage you to consider John Rodgers’ candidacy, and I hope you too will conclude that he is the right person at the right time to serve as our next lieutenant governor, regardless of party affiliation.

Michael Snyder
Stowe