A couple weeks ago I had the privilege to sit down with Peter Driscoll, my former teacher at Hartland Elementary School and Hartford High School and host of the Schooling Struggle Podcast. “Mr. D” has been one of the most impactful role models in my life, and he continues to share wellness wisdom with the wider community through his show.

In this episode (also found on Apple Podcasts) we talk about my campaign for State Representative, and the vulnerability in which it requires. We talk about my upbringing, my life journey up to this point, and the struggles I’m working through that are helping me grow.

I hope listeners are able to takeaway something valuable from this episode, and I HIGHLY recommend becoming a regular listener of the Schooling Struggle Podcast. It’s real, it’s genuine, it’s life. I always walk away from listening to an episode with an insight I can employ in my own life.

I’m hoping to get back into a more regular rhythm of writing and podcasting this fall and I appreciate you hanging with me through the campaign!

Dylan

The November election gets all the attention. It’s the Super Bowl of politics. Democrats vs Republicans, one side vs the other. Most people have their team picked out beforehand, and they do their best to compete for the undecideds and indifferents. In today’s polarized politics, the November election tends to pit candidates not just from different parties, but with entirely different worldviews against each other. The goal is to win. It’s a game of numbers: our team needs more seats than the other team.

The August primary election is very different. It’s a race of nuance. An exchange of ideas, character, and strategy. You’re asked to choose your favorite Democrats amongst Democrats or Republicans amongst Republicans. Candidates can’t simply bash the other side because they are competing on their own side. To differentiate themselves from their peers, they must offer real ideas. If you’ve been following the primary races here in Vermont, you don’t hear a lot about Republicans in Democratic debates or advertisements. You hear about education, housing, and healthcare. You hear about the issues that actually matter. The primary election is what we say we want out of our politics, though we all fall victim to the heated emotions of partisan politics more times than we care to admit.

So why do only 15% of Vermont voters show up for the primary? You can vote early, by mail, or in person on election day, yet 85% in 2024 did none of the above. The November election is a winner-take-all contest. The August primary is everything that sets the stage. Setting the stage is VERY important.

Most districts across the country are politically sorted, meaning that their partisan outcome (Dem or Rep) is predetermined by who lives there (age, race, wealth, etc), where the district exists geographically (rural vs urban), and how the district is drawn (or gerrymandered). We can use the US House of Representatives as an example, where 85% of all seats are not competitive.

The orange dots represent seats where the November election doesn’t really matter. In deep red districts, the Republican nominee will win every time. In deep blue districts, the Democratic nominee will win every time. It doesn’t really matter who’s on the other side.

This exists here in Vermont on the state and local level, too. A Republican candidate for State Representative has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning an election in Burlington or the surrounding towns. A Democratic candidate will not beat a Republican in the race for Essex County State Senate. In many cases, the minority party doesn’t even offer a candidate.

We know from 2024, however, that the November election IS very important. Republicans picked up a historic number of seats, meaning they beat Democrats in places where they had lost previously. There are still many competitive races across the state of Vermont where your vote could go a long way.

But most people across the nation live in “uncompetitive” places. And this makes the primary election all the more important. This makes the primary the Super Bowl.

In short, if you don’t get a say between Democrats and Republicans in November, you should care deeply about which Democrat(s) or Republican(s) advance out of the primary. Because they will be the ones elected in November almost in predetermined fashion. Even if you are of the minority party, your preference should be counted. You must vote in the primary like it’s the general.

Our electoral system doesn’t have to be this way. I’ve written about how we could change it to make it more inclusive of the entire electorate. But for now, we must play the cards we’ve been dealt to the best of our ability. That means voting in the August primary.

As the Valley News has reported, there are a historic number of competitive primary elections across the state of Vermont. When races are competitive, it means YOU the voter get to help decide who wins. It means your vote has real pull. It means you have power.

That in itself is a big reason I have put my hat in the race to represent Hartland, Windsor, and West Windsor in the VT State House. I believe strongly that voters deserve choices at the ballot box. I believe a healthy democracy requires it.

The choices are certainly plentiful on the Democratic ballots here in Windsor County. Two gubernatorial candidates, three for lieutenant governor, two for state auditor. Six Senate candidates vie for three spots. They’re all different in their approach, experience, personalities, and philosophies. And that’s good. That’s choice. In my race we have three candidates for two spots. All of us are different people with different experiences and beliefs. It is the responsibility of the voter to sift through those differences and find what aligns best with you and your vision for the future of our state.

The Republican ballot has less choice. One governor candidate for one spot. One lieutenant governor candidate for one spot. Three Senate candidates for three spots. Zero House candidates for two spots. If you vote in the Republican primary, you can still support these candidates. But your vote will not help make any decisions outside of the race for Congress, where two candidates vie for one spot in an uncompetitive US House race. Becca Balint holds one of those orange dot seats from the graph above.

The bottom line in today’s article is that I want you to vote. I want you to make it to the polls today so that we can do better than 15% turnout in what is likely the most important election until 2028. The August primary election has been neglected for too long. If we truly understand it’s role in determining the future of our government, we will all turn out. This is the election where we voters have the most influence. This is the election where we can start to take back our own power over our democracy.

Most polling places are open around 7:00 or 7:30am. They close at 7:00pm. So please, make a plan to vote between those times. Ask your employer, encourage your employees, tell five friends. Head down on your lunch break or stop by after work. It takes ten minutes but makes a world of difference in Montpelier.

If you live in Hartland, Windsor, or West Windsor, I’d love to have your vote today. But if I can’t, I still hope you show up and cast your ballot. Democracy works best when we all participate. Not just every four years. Not just in November. But in August in the off years when real differences are being made.

Today.

Today is the day.

See you at the polls!

Dylan

Voter information: https://vote.vermont.gov/public/dashboard

“Most Vermont residents find the state to be a not very or not at all affordable place to live, and less than two-thirds rate it as a very good or good place to live overall, down from previous years. About four in ten Vermonters say they are likely to move out of the state within the next five years and about the same percentage want to do so. Lower housing costs, overall cost of living, and taxes, along with a different political or social environment, are mentioned most often as reasons Vermonters are likely to leave. Other New England states are listed most often as likely destinations, New Hampshire in particular, along with states in the South and outside of the country entirely.”

Let’s break this grim picture down a little bit.

More and more Vermonters are rating the state as a “poor” or “very poor” place to live.

Notably, less than half (45%) of respondents age 18-34 state that Vermont is a “good” or “very good” place to live and work,

86% of Vermonters describe the state as “not very” or “not at all” affordable. Only 13% say Vermont is “somewhat” affordable.

An increasing number of Vermonters say that they are likely to move out of the state in the next five years. Almost two-thirds of young people aged 18-34 (64% of them) say that they are likely to leave Vermont. Yes, 64% of prime workers in the healthiest years of their lives who are in or approaching the years of family creation say they are likely to leave here soon. And that number has risen since last year. Cue the alarm bells!!

The number of people likely to leave is approaching the number of people likely to stay! And disproportionately the people more likely to leave are the ones who have their whole productive lives ahead of them. When a young person leaves the state and doesn’t return, we aren’t just dropping our population by a digit. We’re losing years of economically productive activity like business creation, labor and income tax revenue, and family creation. We’re losing years of socially productive activity, too, like event planning, socializing, volunteering, and again, family creation. It’s not good enough for Vermont to try and cling on to a simple population number, regardless of its demographics. We need to be in the business of recapturing years.

How do we do that? Vermonters are telling us what needs changing.

Cheaper housing, a lower tax burden, more social opportunities. The things we can control/are fixable are at the top of the list for what isn’t working for Vermonters. We can’t change the weather for folks (well…) but we can reduce the cost burden, we can build housing, and we can create more vibrant communities. We can keep and attract people if we so choose.

Subscribe now

You see, I believe most people who are leaving - or may soon leave - aren’t leaving necessarily by choice. They aren’t leaving because they don’t like Vermont. Because they don’t want to be here. They’re being forced out. They’ve exhausted their resources. It doesn’t make financial sense to stay. That’s why the leading destination of exiting Vermonters is elsewhere in New England. Many people seem not to want something too different from Vermont. They just want to be able to afford to stay.

Vermont trails behind its New England counterparts in how its residents rate living in the state overall. It’s a hard pill to swallow but one we must seriously grapple with. Ignoring this fact will only dig us into a deeper hole. Government and policy must reflect this reality.

I’d recommend reading The Green Mountain State Poll for yourself. The takeaway for me is clear: we’ve got to change course.

If we don’t, we’ll simply bleed out. The life and prosperity will drain from the middle of this state until all that’s left are the two polar ends: second homes and tent cities. We should be injecting vibrancy, not letting it slip away. Vermont has become one of the oldest states in the nation. We currently experience the nation’s fastest population decline and are the only state to lose more people than we gain through both natural deaths and out-migration. This is both shocking and unsustainable.

If you live in Vermont, you can play out this thought experiment for yourself. What happens to your town if you continue to lose working people?

• What happens to your school if families keep leaving? What happens to your town if your school closes?

• What does your main street look like with fewer shoppers? Fewer stores?

• Who will care for your elderly as they age? Can your region continue to provide medical care with fewer doctors and nurses? What if your care worsens? What if it disappears?

• Can you go without a volunteer fire department in your town? What about a rec center? A police department?

It won’t happen all at once, but it will happen. We’ve already begun to have some of these conversations of scarcity in Windsor County and at the state level, especially in regard to education. Private equity has already begun to circle like vultures over a dying carcass, consuming sectors of the economy (like school bussing and healthcare practices) that haven’t been able to support themselves and extracting wealth from the state.

This bleeding out won’t happen overnight. It will be slow and subtle. Each year that passes, we’ll be able to pay a little less and asked to pay a little more. We’ll chip in more and receive a little less. Each year that passes, more people will flee. Unless we change course.

It was worded to me as I was in the process of reviewing the UNH poll and writing this piece that it is my generation that will make or break Vermont. Where Vermonters my age, young people today, choose to live their futures will determine the direction of the state moving forward. I’m not leaving - I’m committed to this place. My skin is very much in the game here - my future depends on it! But I know I’m not alone. I know there are enough people who love this place enough to give it CPR - even mouth to mouth - to regain our heartbeat and circulate our oxygen. The data from the poll I shared today makes it abundantly clear that “bleeding out” so to speak is not only a possibility but our present course. What are you willing to do to prevent that from happening?

You can start by voting on or before August 11th.

You can vote for change.

Dylan

I don’t think of myself as a populist, and I don’t blame people from elsewhere for visiting our beautiful state. Like I wrote two months ago, if I were from anywhere else, I’d be trying my darndest to get to Vermont whenever I could. But I think something is off when there are second homes everywhere but nobody my age can find an affordable apartment to live in. I think the scales have been tipped when the validity of private property rights depends on the owner’s ability to pay legal fees, as we see too often in land-use disputes. Or when Washington gives top earners a tax break but takes health insurance from those in need. When the perceived legitimacy of our local schools relies on our ability to grow our population, despite the barriers to building 21st century housing.

I’ve heard gubernatorial candidate Amanda Janoo refer to Vermont’s public policy strategy over the last decade as “managed decline,” and I think that’s pretty fitting. In many of the most important indicators of the well-being of people who live here year-round, we’ve seen decline. We face an acute housing shortage, we pay the highest healthcare premiums in the country, our schools are shrinking, our students are learning less, our schools are overburdened, and our homestead property taxes continue to rise. Meanwhile, the share of vacation homes and short-term rentals (think Airbnb) has risen substantially. UVM continues to educate fewer and fewer native Vermonters. Loopholes in our Current Use laws hand tax breaks to wealthy landowners. The state - third oldest in the nation - continues to age.

It’s clear to me that something is systemically wrong with our state’s economy, and it’s why I’ve decided to run for the State House this year. The biggest questions facing our state, like “why do we pay so much for housing, healthcare, and education?” are answered with misaligned solutions like Act 181 and Act 73, which ask, “what land can we carve out of the map?” and “which schools must we close?” respectively. These are questions of scarcity, and sure, for many, times are scarce. There are no easy fixes. But we must think bigger to not simply manage our state’s fiscal decline but to turn it around. To create an abundant economy that works for all, not just some. It begs the defining question of this article and of my campaign: if we aren’t building an economy for workers and families - everyday Vermonters - who are we building it for?

Subscribe now

Right now, through policy, we’re creating two separate Vermont’s. This isn’t the infamous Chittenden-everyone else divide, and it isn’t as innate or partisan as Paul Searls’ “Uphillers” and “Downhillers.” Rather, this divide covers all ~9,600 square miles, touches every town and community, and doesn’t differentiate between newcomers and long-running Vermont families. This divide - the stratification of Vermont - is all of ours to share.

Stratification - In Policy

This past year, the legislature focused primarily on doing (or undoing) three things: Act 181, Act 73, and the yearly yield bill to fund education. Thanks to a grassroots pushback from rural Vermonters in all corners of the state, positive strides were made in repealing Tier 3 and the Road Rule from Act 181. Act 73 (education reform) molded throughout the waning days of the session to ultimately crystallize with two key components: technically voluntary mergers among schools and districts, and a new foundation formula. The yield bill sets the statewide property tax rates. This year, the final deal uses over $100 million in one-time General Fund surplus to “buy down” next year’s average rate increase to 3.5% statewide. Of course, we will be here again next year to address a larger increase with no promise of surplus revenues to help kick the can further down the road. Perhaps more immediately consequential, this year’s yield bill sets a “cap” on what districts can spend on their schools. Anything above the cap triggers a double-taxation penalty. As a result, schools and districts will be asked to cut aggressively from their existing budgets. For some Windsor County schools, this may just be impossible.

I’m worried we’re taking the wrong approach to solving our great challenges here in the state of Vermont. We lack a long-term vision for the state, and as a result, we’ve resorted to scarcity. None of these policies: Tier 3 and the Road Rule, consolidation, and the yield bill make Vermont’s future stronger. They don’t inspire hope that tomorrow could be brighter than today. What is the point of policy if it doesn’t inspire hope? We’ve got to do better than this for rural Vermont, for working people, and for year-round residents. Otherwise, the theme park-ization of our state will continue. The stratification of wealth - where life gets tougher for everyday Vermonters as the rich get richer - will continue. The resulting stratified Vermont could look a whole lot different than the place we live today, but we’ve already taken a few steps down it’s road. This is the Vermont nobody wants to talk about.

Subscribe now

In 2024 I was working in Montpelier when the legislature overrode Governor Scott’s veto of the bill that created Act 181. It’s downfalls: the extreme restrictions placed on private property, economic development opportunity, and rural prosperity, were obvious from the jump. If enacted, Montpelier’s map makers would have been able to geographically stratify the state by defining who can participate in economically productive activities (like homebuilding or running a business), and who can’t. To some degree, Act 250 already does this, and it needs updating badly. Right now, it is clear that Act 250 (while well intentioned) is enforced largely on those who don’t have the time and resources to understand the policy intimately, hire legal representation, and appeal their cases. It works against our small agro-businesses, it prevents further development of our local economies, and it denies opportunities for everyday people to find housing and make their lives here. It may actually be wielded to prevent clean energy infrastructure from being built, too. The people who can circumvent Act 250 and fight local ordinances are the well-financed out of state visitors, second homeowners, and retirees. For every local initiative that is stopped or forced out, an invitation is sent to someone with means to stake their own claim. This is not effective policy, and crucially, it isn’t environmental leadership either. Nor was 181.

There has been a lot of commentary on Act 181 this year, and as a result the harmful components of the bill were stripped during the legislative session. This is a step in the right direction, but it’s certainly far from the last one that needs to be taken. The stratification of Vermont’s land began long before 2024; we must decide what balance we’d like to have achieved by 2050. I believe that balance must start slanting more heavily towards every day, year-round, working people.

Land-use is far from the only input in this equation, however. Education reform and the yearly yield bill have teamed up to squeeze small communities further. We’re going to ask our districts to consolidate, with little evidence to suggest it will save money. And in some cases, with the new penalties at play, the state may not be asking - but forcing.

“This year’s yield bill… will lower the state’s excess spending threshold year after year, starting at 18% above average spending per student and phasing down to 12.5% above average in fiscal year 2032 and beyond, to disincentivize school district spending by double-taxing any spending increases over a certain amount. That will force school districts to consider ways to scale up and partner with neighboring districts to regionalize their services, absorbing the impact of the tightening spending threshold and, eventually, the foundation formula.” - VTDigger

Whether you agree conceptually with the ideas of consolidation or the foundation formula or not, the most concrete reality of education reform right now is that power is shifting from towns and districts to state government. While consolidation efforts remain nominally optional, the spending caps and the eventual funding formula give Montpelier the ability to decide spending levels for all schools across the state. The reductions in spending that are being asked of towns in the near term (starting next school year) will be difficult, if not impossible for some. We have to expect positions and programs to be cut next year as a result of the cap.

“There are districts whose budget going through this (election) was incredibly challenging, and now that the threshold is even lower, positions will be cut. People’s belief of what should be provided in a public school in Vermont, it will really be put in question.” - Sherry Sousa, former Mountain View Supervisory Union superintendent.

There are a few things notably missing from this approach to education reform.

• The cost of teacher healthcare will continue to rise. How will we take this into consideration with caps and formulas? How will we reverse it?

• Special education and mental health costs will continue to rise. What are we not addressing about our children’s lived experiences? What demands have been shifted on to schools that belong in healthcare?

• Most critically (and least discussed): how will this new education system improve student learning and outcomes?

What’s clear from the Scott Administration’s policy is that they view small as unsustainable. “Scale is needed in order to deliver on these educational opportunities,” said Education Secretary Zoie Saunders. Governor Scott graced small schools at risk of penalty with some really insightful advice at his press conference: “hit the ground running,” while going on to say that mergers are “instrumental in everything else that’s going to happen over the next two to three years.”

I’m worried with what will happen in 20 years, however. I’m worried that young families will stop choosing our small towns if we relinquish our role in the education decision-making process. Or if some of our schools are capped and cut until they’re forced to close. I know my town is more prosperous because it has a school, and I’m sure yours might be too. What else does a town lose when it loses a school? Jobs, families, residents, shoppers, business, rec centers. Spirit, connection, hope?

We need people in our towns. More kids in our schools. Vibrant businesses on our main streets. All of these policy goals would have the effect of lowering property taxes, which we must do. If we fail to replace rising property taxes with robust population, they will continue to rise. Regular people will continue to leave. Wealthy out-of-staters will be able to stay, and more properties will be converted to short-term rentals, phony farms, ski condos, and golf courses. This Vermont - the Vermont none of us want to talk about - has already started to take shape.

In Summary

In recent years state government has passed a handful of key policies that I don’t think constitute a positive vision for our state’s future. In fact, in many ways they further entrench an economic stratification in Vermont that has begun to encroach - a stratification that leaves everyday people behind. The longer both branches in Montpelier go without a future-focused economic vision for the state, the more opportunities will continue to present themselves to land speculators and vacationers from elsewhere. I don’t blame them - I blame the laws (or lack thereof) that have created the conditions for them to thrive here. The conditions that are stifling young Vermonters who can’t find apartments, families who are forgoing healthcare, and rural people who are being denied opportunities of their own.

The policy combination from Montpelier on land, education, and taxation together constitute an impossible directive for rural communities to achieve validity in the eyes of state policy: you need size, but you aren’t allowed to grow. Here’s an easier directive back: start governing for our people and our future.

What we decide today, on education, healthcare, land, and more will shape the Vermont we will find ourselves in (or out of) in 25 years from now. Our laws and policies must reflect a desire to make tomorrow brighter than today - not more scarce. Our landowners deserve better. Our workers deserve better. Our kids in school certainly deserve better. The balance is off and we must change course to correct it.

We can do better than “managed decline.”

We can hope.

Thanks for reading, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Dylan Morse

Today, America turns 250. Our nation feels deeply divided, though we’ve traded 19th century Springfield rifles and Minie balls for speedy thumbs that fire mean-spirited tweets, texts, and reels. We’ve come a long way in 250 years, and we can’t lose track of that. The progress this nation has made on the fronts of civil rights, liberties, science, business, and education (to name a few) has changed the world for the better. We’ve still got a long way to go to become our best self, and it will be a whole lot easier if we do it together, as Lincoln recognized.

Lincoln finished his address:
” …The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

Fellow-citizens, we can not escape history. We of this Congress and this Administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another or us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free – honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just – a way which if followed the world will forever applaud and God must forever bless.”

Lincoln suggests in his synthesis of time that while we cannot escape our history, we are not limited by it either. Modern problems require new solutions, ones we may not yet have attempted. What we give is what we preserve: freedom and hope. It is up to us and nobody else to save America - the last best hope of earth - and the world will be forever grateful if we succeed.

In the darkest moments of American history, Lincoln gave us an immovable, perennial message of hope. That it is in our earthly hands in this present moment that progress can be achieved. It echoes Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, signed a quarter millennium ago, on this very day. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In this philosophy - the individual rights of man - America invented something new. Government would be, they envisioned, not a function of religious establishment or class stratification but an ever-evolving entity subject to the changing desires of the will of the people. Even in Athens and Rome this philosophy had never been stated so clearly, and until very recently in America, it had never been truly practiced. But Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries knew that what they had helped to create could be something unprecedentedly special. In fact, they bet their lives on it. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Since I was a child, I’ve had a copy of the Declaration of Independence in my bedroom. It is, perhaps, the most significant written piece in the history of the world. The Founding Fathers knew that the nation they created would be far from perfect. Jefferson, for example, knew very well that slavery was wrong and that it would not - could not - be a permanent American arrangement. It went against his very words written so soundly in the Declaration. We just wish today he had the will power to end it in his time. Alas, he fell short. So did Lincoln - emancipation was not his first policy proposal.

The American promise enshrined in the annals of history 250 years ago today is not that our nation would be perfect. Or that it would get things - sometimes very very vital things - right every time. The American promise we celebrate today is that progress remains an option. It is far from guaranteed: it must be earned. But it remains an option.

In 1862 Abraham Lincoln called America the “last best hope of earth.” Something about that means something to me. We don’t necessarily feel like a nation full of hope today. But in the spirit of the Declaration - I think we could. Someday in the not-so-distant future America could feel very different. It could feel together, strong, on the rise. It could feel hopeful. But only if we earn it.

My question to you today requires a bit of reflection. It may be uncomfortable to answer but I hope it isn’t easy to brush off. I hope it stays with you. It’s something I’ve been thinking about lately as I’ve been out in the community and on the campaign trail. As I’ve been talking with my neighbors who are ready for change. My question today is this:

What are you doing in your life to make tomorrow’s America more hopeful?

Today is America’s 250th birthday, and I hope you have something great planned to celebrate it. It’s a major milestone worthy of pride and recognition. But tomorrow, July 5th, will come. And every day after that will continue to provide us - regular American citizens - with the opportunity to inspire hope. It is what birthed this nation in 1776. It is what has held it together ever since. It is hope that will guide us toward our 300th birthday.

So long as we choose it.

Happy Independence Day!

Dylan

Have you ever wondered how your environment shapes your worldview? 🤔

The truth is, where we grow up and the people we meet profoundly influence how we see the world.

For instance, a person from rural Virginia has a different perspective than someone from urban New York. These experiences shape our political beliefs, our relationships, and even our daily choices.

As we expand our horizons—like moving to different states or meeting people from various backgrounds—we challenge our assumptions and grow.

It’s crucial to recognize that everyone’s beliefs stem from their unique experiences. Let’s remember to listen and engage in honest conversations.

What has your environment taught you? 🌍

Make sure you tune in to capture the full conversation! You can find the show on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube! I’ll send each episode out here in the newsletter or you can toggle over to the Across the Aisle Podcast tab on the home page. Thanks for listening - I hope you enjoy!

Dylan

*Apologies for the audio issues on my end of the episode, my microphone cut out!

For this reason, it may be more important to understand who sits on your town’s school board or planning commission than who represents you in Congress - or who doesn’t in the White House. On one hand, local politics are our most democratic. You can show up front row to any school board meeting to learn more and share your thoughts. You can drive to Montpelier to protest, testify, and persuade the citizen legislature to change course, as we saw this year in response to imminent harmful land regulations.

And most essentially, you can vote every so often in a truly meaningful way. Every year at town meeting day, we work together to hash out our budgets. Every two years, our state legislators must answer for the work they’ve done (or haven’t) at the ballot box. Same for our governor. This - voting - is Vermonters most impactful force for change.

It’s a different situation 500 miles south, in the nation’s capital. Our neighbors don’t testify in front of committees there. There’s a real transaction cost to getting to Washington to protest. While more accessible than in most states, our delegation is certainly further removed from us than are our neighbors who serve in Montpelier. And a polarizing gridlock in D.C. has partnered with big money in politics, partisan gerrymandering, and the electoral college to dilute the power of our greatest democratic tool, the vote.

On the other hand, the politics of the nation are deeply intertwined with the lives we live in Hartland or Windsor or West Windsor. As we have found out all too clearly, what happens in Washington has real impacts on our local communities. You may have lost health insurance this year with the expiration of federal tax credits. You likely have seen consumer prices rise as result of tariffs and the war in Iran. If you live in the Northeast Kingdom, you may have been denied disaster relief for flooding. If you live in our small, rural state, you may have even witnessed a member of your community, like Mohsen Mahdawi, kidnapped in Colchester or South Burlington by masked federal agents.

What happens in Washington has real effects on our lives, even up here in Vermont. But I think we often forget the opposite is true, too. What we are able to accept here in Vermont will be taken as acceptable terms for the nation. That’s why ongoing protests in places like Windsor and Woodstock are so important - we must make clear what we do not accept. One step further, we need legislation that accomplishes the same feat. Otherwise, what we are unable to do here in Vermont we can never expect for the nation.

Subscribe now

Vermont has often offered a vision to the nation of what a brighter future could look like, together. In 1777, Vermont outlawed slavery in its founding document, the first state to do so. In fact, Vermont made slavery illegal before the land between New York and New Hampshire had even become a state. Nearly nine decades later, the federal government would follow with the 13th Amendment after Vermont had committed 10% of its entire population to the Civil War effort - one of the highest per-capita rates of service of any state. This Green Mountain commitment was two-fold: this brave little state has long remained tirelessly committed to both the endurance of the Union and the rights of man. Freedom and Unity. For all, every time. Without reservation. Without hesitation.

When the nation fell short, Vermont stepped up. It was the individual towns who committed much of the money the state sent to the war effort, with no expectation of being paid back. It was the individual effort and sacrifice of our neighbors who helped turn the tide of history. General Winfield Scott, overseeing Union forces early in the war, was to have stated "I want your Vermont regiments, all of them. I have not forgotten the Vermont men on the Niagara frontier... I remember the Vermont men in the War of 1812."

All politics are local.

As Vermont has proven through time, whether in regard to abolition and the Civil War or the establishment of civil unions and same-sex marriage, this state is willing and able to lead where the nation is not. And by doing so, our small state - 49th in population - helps to move America forward.

At such a tumultuous time in American politics Vermont cannot abandon this leadership.

If we want a better education for our kids in this country, we should build the greatest state education system here in Vermont.

If we believe that the wealthiest Americans should pay more into the pot, we should ask that of them here in Vermont.

If we don’t want masked federal agents grabbing people off the streets of our country, we should unmask them here in Vermont.

The list goes on and on, but the point is this: we must reconcile what we say we want for the nation here at home. If we can’t, it just won’t happen. All politics are local.

Perhaps the most important quality we can model to the nation is decency. We all have the ability to treat each other as neighbors. We all have the ability to listen and to learn. We all have the ability to be decent, in agreement and disagreement alike.

Our local leaders need to step up to deliver us a brighter future here in Vermont when it comes to policies and laws. But we all must step up as individuals to deliver ourselves a more decent future. We are, within ourselves, the most local source of politics.

And all politics are local.

Dylan

If you support this message, you can support my campaign for VT State Representative today!

Vote: https://vote.vermont.gov/public/dashboard

Donate: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dylan-morse-1

Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dylanmorseforvt/

Sign up for updates: https://morseforvermont.us12.list-manage.com/subscribe...

Campaign website: https://www.morseforvermont.com/

I want to start today by introducing myself to those who may not know me yet. My name is Dylan Morse. I’m a ninth-generation Vermonter who grew up in Hartland, just like my old man did. My parents raised me with two guiding principles: to work hard and to treat people well. Since grade school at Hartland Elementary, I’ve had a deep love for the social sciences: history, geography, and later, politics. Public service is, to me, how I will fulfill the simple yet profound directive my parents have instilled in me: to work hard on behalf of the public good, and to treat people well at scale through policy that makes us all better off.

I truly am a product of public education. I couldn’t be more grateful for all I’ve received from Hartland Elementary School, Hartford High School, and George Mason University. A strong, universal public education is to me, as it was to many of our nation’s founding fathers, a prerequisite to the longevity of democracy. For that reason, supporting public education is a pillar of my campaign. At a time of change in Vermont’s education system, it is important to have voices in the conversation who have been through it as students. Since my time as a Vermont public education student, I’ve returned to the classroom periodically as a substitute teacher. I’ve seen the challenges our teachers are up against. I’ve seen the needs of our students change. And I’m ready to get involved to do something about it.

I’ll be talking more about education - along with my other priorities - in the weeks to come, and I hope to hear more from you about yours. For now, here’s a snapshot of how I see the biggest challenges facing Vermont.

• Housing: To shoot it straight, we need more. Home prices in Vermont have skyrocketed in recent years, keeping people of all ages locked out of the market. The state faces a housing shortage of around 30,000 homes! If I’m elected to serve in the state legislature, I’ll be a strong advocate for housing construction. People need access to the American Dream. Our democracy counts on it.

• Population: I've talked with Vermonters of all ages about the costs they face to live in Vermont, and how much cheaper it could be for them to move elsewhere. Everyday Vermonters are leaving the state, and it’s exacerbating our challenges elsewhere: in education, in healthcare, and on Main Street. It doesn’t have to be this way. The day I step foot in the statehouse I’ll be committed to lowering the cost of living in Vermont in order to attract and retain workers and families.

• Education: Right now, costs are rising while enrollment and test scores drop. That’s not an equation for success in Vermont. Lawmakers must empower teachers, seek to fill our classrooms, and equip our schools with proper resources - not close them down. Our kids and the taxpayers who support them deserve better. We need to change course. If I’m elected to the VT House of Representatives, I’ll be looking for ways to transform education to better serve our kids, our teachers, and our taxpayers.

• Healthcare: Vermonters pay some of the highest healthcare premiums in the country. The rising costs are driving up education and household costs across the state, and our neighbors are going without the care they need. We need more young people in the state to balance the insurance risk pool. We need more nurses and providers. And we need preventative and primary care to stop emergencies before they happen. If I’m honored with your vote on August 11th, I’ll be focused on making sure healthcare is affordable, accessible, and actually helping us to live healthier and happier lives.

• Landscape: Vermonters have a long tradition of living on the land. Our farmers and foresters are some of our best land stewards, and we need to empower them to continue that work. Vermont is at its best when everyday Vermonters can enjoy the outdoors, when our small family farms are able to thrive economically, and when environmentalism partners with rural communities. We need to make land livable for everyday Vermonters, not just the wealthy and second homeowners. It is this livable landscape that defines Vermont’s history and culture and must define its future if we hope to make it a place for everyone.

These are a handful of the issues I’ll be laser-focused on if I’m honored with your vote this year. The challenges are large, and it’s my belief that they will require new voices, creative solutions, and active and energetic policymakers in tune with Vermont’s future to begin to solve them. That’s what I’ll bring to the table in Montpelier because that’s what Hartland, Windsor, and West Windsor deserve.

You can learn more about my priorities for Vermont at my website: www.morseforvermont.com.

I might be bias, but I believe there’s something truly special about our community. My parents both worked a lot of hours when I was growing up, and as a result my path blended with the town’s. I’ve often said that the Hartland Rec Center was my second home from age 5-18, and honestly, during the summer it was probably my first. I can’t count the hours I’ve spent after school at the public library or at football practice at the Windsor fairgrounds. How many arcade games I’ve played at Pizza Chef. I’ve played dozens and dozens of basketball games at HES or on that awesome hardwood floor at Windsor High School. I’ve kayaked from Sumners Falls to the Windsor-Cornish covered bridge and summited Mt. Ascutney on numerous occasions. This community is where I learned to fish, learned to drive, learned to work, and became the person I am today. To serve it is an absolute dream of mine.

Today, our very sense of community is under threat by a national politics that seeks to tear us apart. Our country is divided between red and blue, and as a result, we’ve become more divided as a people. Congress - our first branch of government - has effectively ceased working on behalf of the American people. The Trump Administration thrives on our division. It thrives when we no longer look at each other as neighbors, but as partisan opponents. It thrives when we no longer look at each other as human beings.

We can’t treat the current events of today as “politics as usual” because it’s just not. The disaster unfolding in Washington has real effects on Vermonters: in our pockets, our constitutional rights, and our sense of shared community. That’s why I’m stepping up to run. For me, staying on the sidelines simply isn’t an option any longer. We need change. We need leadership in Montpelier who is committed to the rights and dignity of everyday Vermonters. We need to change how our country does politics and we can start right here. In Hartland. In Windsor. In West Windsor.

Join me, and we can start now.

Vote on August 11th!

Vote: https://vote.vermont.gov/public/dashboard

Donate: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dylan-morse-1

Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dylanmorseforvt/

Sign up for updates: https://morseforvermont.us12.list-manage.com/subscribe...

Campaign website: https://www.morseforvermont.com/

Thank you - and see you next week!

Dylan

In July of last year, Congressional Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which extended the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act from 2017. The bill extended tax cuts for most income groups, though the cuts were not fully offset by other sources of revenue or spending cuts (current estimates say that the OBBBA will add between $4-5 trillion dollars to the national debt over the next decade, while less than 10% will be offset by projected economic growth). Who benefits most depends on your frame of reference. Wealthy Americans pay the largest share of tax revenue, so the tax exemption will put vastly more money (as a dollar amount) back into rich peoples’ pockets, compared to everyone else. But though the dollar amount return is less for low-income people, their tax rate as a percentage dropped more as a result.

The math is a little wonky, but it boils down to this: rich Americans pay more in taxes, so the across-the-board tax exemption benefits them most. The breakdown looks something like this:

• Households in the top 5% (earning more than $450,000 a year) received over 45% of the benefit of extending the tax cuts.

• The bottom 80% of earners get 29% of the value.

• The top 10% (which includes the top 5%) gets 56% of the value of the cuts.

• The top 1% (earning over $1 million per year) can expect to save $70,000 in taxes on average in 2027 because of this policy.

• By contrast, middle income households can expect to save $1,000 in taxes.

• source

In part, this makes some sense. The US has a progressive income tax code. Like I said, rich people pay more in taxes so when taxes are cut, they get more of the benefit. But if you’re also puzzled by the prior breakdown - why are people who have more getting even more? - then we’re on the same page. If we’re going to cut taxes, first I’d prefer they be offset. But second, and more prudently, we can choose which money we actually want to tax - and should. It’s not only backward that the rich get richer through policies like Trump’s OBBBA at a time when income and wealth inequality continues to grow. It’s fiscal malpractice.

A few Vermont lawmakers are trying to do something about this. Representatives Esme Cole (Hartford), Teddy Waszazak (Barre City), and Monique Priestley (Bradford) have been pushing for a bill in the House to basically un-do the extended tax cuts for the wealthiest Vermonters. The proposal would create a new income bracket for the state’s top 1% - households earning over $586,634 per year. The logic goes that if the Trump Administration and federal government do not want this revenue, we’ll take it and put it to good use here in state government. $170 million in new state revenue sure could go a long way in Vermont.

Subscribe now

This proposal isn’t really a new tax for the top 1%, either. It’s a return to the tax rate they experienced prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. It’s a clever way at a clever moment to divert funds from Washington to Montpelier when otherwise they’d be shut off. And to that, I say yes please.

Governor Scott doesn’t agree. He has made his opposition to the wealth tax clear, and many Democrats as a result have chosen not to press the issue. Scott has stated the common concern that raising taxes on the wealthy will cause them to pack up and leave the state. On the surface, that sounds like a legitimate worry. But the research doesn’t really back it up.

"The most striking finding of this research is how little elites seem willing to move to exploit tax advantages across state lines in the United States." - 2024 Stanford study.

“Tax the rich. They’re not going anywhere” - TIME

“There is no millionaire exodus. If you look at their published migration numbers going back to 2013, millionaire migration rates have consistently stood at less than 1% every year since then, both globally and nationally. So, what their data actually shows, taken at face value, is that millionaires are highly immobile.” - The Guardian

“No state has ever lost money by raising income or estate taxes for rich people.” - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

“Two new studies show there is little evidence that the rich flee high-tax states.” - NPR

“Millionaires hardly ever move from one state to another for any reason, and when they do there is little evidence that their choice is driven by taxes.” - Tax Policy Center

We could and should do more research on this topic, and the provided list is hardly exhaustive. But I think we also just kind of know this to be true anecdotally. People love Vermont - rich people really love Vermont. How many vacant mansions do you have in your town? How long do properties stay on the market? We already have an adjacent case study for this kind of policy. In 2024, Vermont increased the tax on second-home purchases. I’ll ask you, do we have a shortage of second homeowners now?

I just don’t buy the argument from Gov that Vermont’s 1% will pack up and leave if they are asked to once again pay what they were paying ten years ago. And if a couple do, I have no doubt they’ll be replaced by someone else who’s willing to chip in to our shared community.

What is undeniably clear to me is that everyday Vermonters outside of the 1% ARE in fact leaving. We can muse on what a handful of millionaires might do when faced with a higher tax rate. Or we can look at the reality - what is actually happening in front of our eyes - for working people in Vermont. Housing costs are too high, primary homes are unavailable, the property tax burden is too high, healthcare is further out of reach, our roads in many parts of the state aren’t being maintained. Vermont runs on us people down here in the bottom 99%. Workers, families, teachers, nurses. And right now, the deal we got just ain’t cutting it. Public policy should mirror that reality.

I hope Democrats come together to pass this wealth tax, even if Governor Scott vetoes it. The job of the legislature is to pass policy it believes in, not just policy the chief executive gives his stamp of approval on. This Vermont proposal in tandem with rising inequality in America has me thinking more broadly about taxation. Nobody likes paying taxes, but we all enjoy many of the things they help pay for: schools, roads, retirement, healthcare, police and fire. Our tax code in America is broken. It’s outdated, unfair, and making us more unequal. I’ll preface my message today by saying that I’m no “eat the rich” Democrat. I’m not here to vilify wealth. But I am a Democrat who believes that money at the top should be taxed more. Some taxes can be punitive: cigarettes are taxed as a punishment to deter people from smoking. I don’t want to deter people from starting businesses, striving for goals, and accumulating wealth in productive ways. But when we do accumulate great wealth, I believe we have a responsibility to give some back - more than what we ask of the 1% today. I don’t want our tax system to punish hard work, skills, or entrepreneurial spirit. Rather, I want it to reflect that everyone who succeeds benefits from something shared that is unearned by us as individuals. The shared environment that allows for some to amass great wealth is a product of the safety, security, education, and resources all of us contribute to and are equally products of. We’re all better off when our nation is safe, our peoples’ baseline needs are met, and our kids are educated. In short, many of the conditions that allow for individual success rely on a pot we all pour into. This pot could use a little more pouring today. Western capitalism can give us this, if we ask it to.

Asking Less of Top Money: A Recent Phenomenon

I think it’s important to put today’s national tax picture into historic context. We’ll start with the income tax.

In 2017 President Trump lowered the top marginal tax bracket from 39.6% to 37%. As a result, people making more than $626,351 pay less in taxes. The top rate has varied through history, starting out small when the 16th Amendment established the income tax in 1913. In 1944, the top tax rate was 94% - meaning that for every dollar earned above the 1944 equivalent of $626,351 - 94 cents were sent to Washington as tax revenue, and the taxpayer kept 6 cents. This high tax rate helped pay for America’s efforts in World War II and it reveals something about the fabric of the nation at the time: when the going gets tough, the rich chip in. We’re in this together.

I think the tax code in part created a norm of responsibility amongst the nation’s elite. It’s why so many things are named Vanderbilt or Rockefeller today - the rich of the early twentieth century gave away a lot of their wealth (and not just to their kids). They paid high taxes and then on top of it donated large swaths of money to support the public interest in education, medicine, or conservation. Since then, the top marginal income tax rate has declined. We ask top earners to pay into the pot less today than we used to, and it’s eroded the fabric of togetherness we used to have. Our tax code, while still progressive, has asked less of high earners in recent years. It has, I feel in a way, partially alleviated them of their responsibility to the nation.

The same is true for corporations. In 2017 President Trump lowered the corporate tax rate substantially from 35% to 21%. The top corporate tax rate has essentially fallen since 1952, when it was 52% straight through to today. So, in addition to high earners being asked to contribute less, we’re also asking corporations to pay less too. As you and I know too well, the middle class has not received that same luxury. The cost of housing, healthcare, and education have all risen faster than wages in recent years. In Vermont, property taxes rise year after year, roads go unkept, and health premiums continue to skyrocket. Across the nation parents are struggling to pay for childcare, public schools are going underfunded, and rural hospitals are closing. Is it really appropriate to continue to ask high earners and corporations to pay less? To ask the people with the most means to bear less responsibility?

The answer has to be no.

Looking Past Income

Everyone’s favorite government agency the IRS is really effective at taxing income, in terms of setting a rate and collecting what is due. In other words, America is really good at taxing work. But the richest Americans - the biggest pot of potential revenue - aren’t workers. They are asset owners.

For most Americans (90% of us), our homes are our #1 assets, followed by our “consumer durable goods” like cars and appliances. But for the top 10%, investment assets and private businesses make up a larger share of their wealth. In practice, homes are much easier to tax than corporate equities and mutual funds. Income is much easier to tax than assets.

The IRS is not good at taxing assets because the US doesn’t consider many as taxable income until they are sold. Because of this, large swaths of pinnacle wealth are virtually going untaxed today.

“ProPublica reported that in 2007 and 2011, Jeff Bezos paid no income tax, while Elon Musk achieved the same feat in 2018. The two men have been ping-ponging back and forth for the title for the world’s richest person, yet they’ve paid little to no tax over the past years.

More widely, between 2014 to 2018 the 25 richest Americans combined paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income tax, the report stated, all while their collective wealth rose by approximately $401 billion.” - Interesting Engineering

Someone like Mark Zuckerberg can live a high life off the increasing value of his assets while earning no salary, therefore avoiding income tax. Jeff Bezos (worth $224 billion) has actually claimed a $4,000 child tax credit designed for working and middle-class families because, technically his income ($0) is below the threshold and he qualifies by law. Income tax works great for progressively taxing workers (though its progressivity has been undermined in recent years) but it doesn’t touch asset owners - the ultra-rich. Income taxes are optional for them. Essentially, we don’t yet have a way to enforce taxes for the people who should be contributing the most. We really should. As things currently stand, the average American is actually paying a higher effective tax rate than the richest:

“The individuals who make up the Forbes 400 list, topped by Tesla CEO Elon Musk with a fortune of $244 billion, paid an average effective tax rate of 24% from 2018 to 2020, compared with a 30% rate for all other U.S. taxpayers.” - UC Berkeley study.

Pre and Re

It’s not always popular to say these days, but I believe in capitalism. I believe in private property, hard work and risk taking, and the economic incentives that spur productivity. I believe in markets and enterprise. In my view, this is what has largely delivered the West with a standard of living unparalleled in human history. But I don’t think capitalism can be left unchecked.

Share

As I described last week, I believe in rules in marketplaces that protect consumers. In fact, I think rules are what make a market truly free. As I’ve pointed to today, I also believe that the rich have a responsibility to society. I believe in pre and redistribution.

Predistribution describes policies that try to mitigate inequality before taxation. Good paying jobs, access to housing and health and childcare, quality education. Predistribution tries to level the playing field from the outset to limit inequality. Redistribution is corrective policy that involves post-tax transfers to help make up for inequality that already exists. In America, we tax high earners more than low earners and can choose to use the revenue to pay for services that help the disadvantaged. Redistribution is like Robinhood. Predistribution and redistribution are different but also linked. Taxing wealthy Americans to pay for a child tax credit, for example, is redistributive to the parents, but predistributive (am I making up words now?) for the child.

We probably need a mix of both interventions in our economy. The Tax Policy Center estimates that a simple wealth tax on American’s individual wealth over $20 million (meaning that if you make under $20 million, it does not apply to you) could generate over one trillion dollars. Add on a 2% tax on wealth between $20 million and $100 million and you net another $600 million. One and two percent are very small asks that could garner a lot of money to redistribute to things that benefit us all. If we truly want to grow the economy - so often the argument against government intervention in the market - we should make sure our kids have high quality education, our people have access to opportunities, and we eradicate poverty. Allowing assets to pile up at the top is not how to grow the economy. Putting money to work against inequality is.

Wrapping Up

Warren Buffett has a kind of sad/funny quote on this subject:

“I pay a lower tax rate than my secretary. That’s just plain wrong.”

And he’s right. That is wrong. But that’s how the tax system works in America. We tax labor up to a certain point, but don’t tax unrealized capital. Middle earners are making up a smaller and smaller share of the economic pie, and I’ll give you a secret: it’s not the people on welfare who are taking up the rest. Like I said, I’m not an “eat the rich” Democrat. I don’t want Marx and I don’t want the French Revolution - I just want a tax system where the people who have the most chip in a little more. We don’t need a full-on class warfare to solve this problem. But we do need to change course. Big shoutout to Vermont Reps Cole, Waszazak, and Priestley for giving this thing a go!

Vermont is such a special place that even our one-percenters are asking to be taxed more. You can read their open letter here.

A section of it reminds me of the togetherness our tax code used to instill at a prior moment of American history:

“Here in Vermont, we take pride in our community spirit. We recognize that we can go further together than we can go alone, coming together to face moments of difficulty. This is one of those moments. At a time when the federal government is slashing funding that Vermonters rely on and creating fear and uncertainty in our communities – while giving huge tax breaks to Vermonters like us–we can chart a different path.”

Big shoutout to them, too.

We’ve got to change the conversation around taxation in America to get something that works better for all of us. As individual as we like to be, we must recognize that we are in this together, after all. We all contribute to - and are products of - that special American sauce that creates the conditions for success. When we achieve it, we have an obligation to pay back in. A responsibility; a civic duty; not a punishment.

We need updated policies to ensure that obligation is met.

Dylan

I made my way through tightly packed aisles and tried to adjust to a new menu of options. I ended up finding a couple deals but generally paid higher prices for a more limited selection of goods. Maybe that’s the point. As I alluded to, the Whole Foods experience is intended to put your mind at rest as you put produce into your cart - you’re supposed to be able to assume that whatever you purchase is healthy (free of harmful pesticides, additives, and disease) and ethical (not assembly line chicken or soil-killing produce). But can you make that assumption? How do we know what’s good for us and what isn’t? These carrots look the same as the ones from Hannaford’s or Price Chopper, after all.

I share this story because the experience really made me think about the fundamental relationship between suppliers (sellers) and consumers (buyers). The relationship is paramount to market economies, but it has changed over time to become something less desirable to the consumers in many ways. The scale has been tilted against you and me, and I think grocery retail is a great example of how.

Subscribe now

Traditional market economies rely on consumers’ ability to effectively and transparently judge the price and quality of goods. You should be able to choose between healthy or unhealthy, expensive or cheap, compromise in between, or walk away and pick nothing at all. That ability - transparent choice - has been compromised. How?

Contamination: We’ve allowed large scale corporate producers in this country to get away with a lot in order to create a large, fast, and relatively cheap food supply. As a result, many of our “healthy” foods like spinach, strawberries, grapes, apples, and potatoes are highly contaminated with pesticides. We can’t really assume that we’re making the right choice when we put conventionally healthy produce in our carts due to contamination. The burden falls further on the consumer. We must 1) make the choice to eat conventionally healthy foods, 2) choose the right brand of “organic” product, 3) avoid pre-packaged veggies and greens - choose the head of lettuce rather than the plastic bag of romaine, 4) wash the contaminants of our produce when we get home, and then 5) prepare, store, and eat in healthy ways. What if we just didn’t allow our food to be contaminated in the first place? The suppliers have to uphold their end of the relationship.

Ingredients: I’ll ask you to move on from the produce section now. Take your cereals, breads, peanut butter, jelly, granola bars, freezer items, etc. How much time do you spend looking at the ingredients labels? The better question: how much time should we be reasonably expected to examine the labels on every product we buy? An example from my own life: I am a pretty health-conscious shopper. I read the labels. I have spent weeks trying to find a granola without added sugar. Fifteen minutes later, every week, no luck. There is actually no option to consume granola from my grocery store without added sugar, despite my best efforts in searching. Added sugar is an ingredient that is unnatural. It’s synthetically produced in the form of corn syrup/cane sugar/dextrose/sucrose - take your pick - to make our foods sweeter and more addictive. And it has real negative impacts on our health. There are so many mystery ingredients in our foods today that are unnatural. What is soy lecithin? Xanthan gum? Why do we need to dye our food colors? Many of these products, like granola, bars, cereals, and oats, are branded as healthy foods. I can still hear the General Mills slogan from commercials in my childhood: “an important part of this balanced breakfast.” Yes, cinnamon toast crunch is delicious. No, it is not an important part of any balanced diet. In fact, by many markers, it is poison marketed to children and parents. And I ate a lot of it as a kid.

Governments in other countries simply don’t allow this. They don’t allow poison in the food supply. Here’s an example of easy oats from the same company, from two different countries with two very different sets of rules about what ingredients can go in food.

I don’t have to explain the contrast. There aren’t even strawberries in “strawberries and cream” oatmeal in the United States! Are you serious?? What are we doing?

I always find it sort of ironic when I walk past the “natural foods” aisle in the grocery store. What the hell is everything else? Again, the onus of responsibility has been passed further from the supplier to the consumer (us). But can we be expected to effectively judge every aisle decision on if it will make us feel marginally better or worse after consuming it for a couple months? Will we be able to effectively evaluate how much each food adds or subtracts from our total lifespans? No, I just need some goddamn granola. And I’d prefer it not increase my chances of heart disease or diabetes over the course of my lifetime. My point here is that normal marketplaces provide opportunity for consumers to test and evaluate products. I can look at the car and even test drive it before I buy. When I test drive, I can discover if the car runs, how well it runs, and which features I like or dislike about it - all which informs the value I attribute to the car. And critically, as much as I like my Civic, there’s nothing Honda can put under the hood that will make me a Civic addict. I can walk away at any time.

With food, we can taste test, but we can’t empirically know how a product will impact our lifespan. For example, if I eat strawberries and cream Quaker Oats every day for the rest of my life starting tomorrow, I can’t know how many days I’ll lose off my lifespan or how much money it will cost me in healthcare consumption down the road. The only real tangible stimulus I get is that 1) it tastes good, and 2) it isn’t killing me now. Maybe I’ll be able to judge my energy levels or mood if I’m in tune with my body and discipled enough to run some controlled tests. Or, what if we only allowed real ingredients in our food? Is it just me or do suppliers have a responsibility to play in not slowly poisoning us?

Consolidation: Our food supply nationally has become more consolidated. In some ways, this has made it more efficient. But in the efficiency, we’ve lost some valuable stuff: health, ethics, and local prosperity.

“Today, the top four corporations control more than 60% of the U.S. market for pork, coffee, cookies, and bread. The top four corporations control more than 70% of the U.S. market for yogurt, beer, and soybean seeds. And the top four corporations control more than 80% of the market for beef processing, corn seed, soybean processing, baby food, pasta, cereal, soda, and more.” - Statement made by the Open Markets institute to the House Judiciary Committee in 2022.

This market consolidation is intense, and it touches most of the goods we find in a standard grocery chain. It even touches the grocery stores themselves. In the early 1990s, Walmart sold no groceries. By the early 2000s, it had become the largest food retailer in the U.S. In that decade we didn’t require drastically more groceries than before, Walmart had just crowded out much of the market. More grocery-selling Walmarts means fewer BG’s…sorry… Three Corners Markets. “Over this same period the top four grocers’ market share doubled through hundreds of mergers.” Essentially, Walmart’s share of the pie is getting larger while places around the country like Brownsville Butcher and Pantry are seeing their slice get smaller. Same for the industries listed above: pork, bread, yogurt, beer, cereal, etc. The big producers and suppliers are getting bigger while the small guys are losing ground, leading to market consolidation.

The sort of oligopolies (markets dominated by a few large firms) that have come to dominate industries like retail grocery, meat packing, and to some degree farming can have real damaging consequences for consumers and smaller scale farms and firms. Price gouging and collusion are all on the table when competition is limited in the marketplace. Larger firms are more prone to take shortcuts in health and ethical standards. I recently watched a documentary on the corporate food system that in one scene depicted live chicks in buckets traveling down a conveyer belt being sprayed and dumped before being packed into tight quarters. That’s not the image I like to have in my head when I cook chicken at home - for health reasons and for the sake of the animals. It’s not anything like the picture I see from my neighbors’ chicken coup or on Vermont farms.

In addition to these shortcuts, when oligopolies take control of markets, we lose something really special to Vermont, in particular. We lose the small family farms and firms that define much of the state’s character. We all benefit from these local enterprises who do business the right way: taking care of land, animals, and people, fair pricing, employing local employees, and contributing to local revenues through taxes and charity. Market consolidation is extractive: it pulls money out of communities. The opposite occurs when small scale producers and suppliers thrive: local dollars circulate throughout the community. For example, I remember multiple occasions when Mike’s store in Hartland would make generous donations to HES when I was a student there. It’s Mascoma Bank that sponsors little league teams all over the region, not Capital One or Chase. It was the local family farms of Hartland that began farm-to-school programs to get us kids healthy whole foods in our school snacks and lunches. Walmart and Hannaford’s just aren’t invested in the community in the same way. We’ve got to find better ways to support the people who are.

Subscribe now

Take all of these things together in our food supply chain - product contamination, harmful ingredients, market consolidation - and we consumers see our market power decline. We know less about the health and quality of our food, what is in it, and where our money is going when we buy it. Our ability to choose (critical to any free market) has been compromised. In a strange new way, the food isn’t really the product. We are.

Strange things are happening in grocery stores. They have coffee shops and bars. Lounges and mini service stations for pizza, sandwiches, or sushi. During my Whole Foods experience, Ally and I got boxed lunch from the hot food bar. When we checked out, the cashier asked if we wanted silverware, and invited us to dine in at some tables in the grocery store. This is a grocery store, I thought to myself. I’m taking my takeout home, thanks.

Maybe it’s just me but I go to the grocery store for my groceries, then I get the hell out. It’s not a place I like to spend my leisure time. But more and more it seems like grocery stores are trying to become customer experiences. Again, why is there a beer bar in the grocery store? Better question: who is going to it? The simple buy-sell relationship has been traded in for something more corporately intimate - and it’s really starting to freak me out.

For a while now Amazon has created a vast web of products across industries. Books, mail, web services, retail products, grocery, pharmacy, streaming, live television. They’ve created a corporate cocoon for customers in an unrivaled, unlimited, and unprecedented way. Now, other companies are catching on. Netflix once was just a mail-order movie service. Now, streaming, live TV, podcasts, and games. These giants are trying to become hubs of consumption, if they haven’t already. Not just places for us to buy things but where we go to spend our time that keeps us in the cocoon. That keeps our data accessible.

Our data is the product now. What we watch, what we buy, how we spend our time is all monitored by these companies. It’s how they target us with advertisements. Our data is bought and sold back and forth as a commodity way more valuable than the groceries we buy on any given weekend. At the end of my Whole Foods experience was something that really jarred me. You can scan your palm to pay for your groceries. Our biological data is now directly linked to our payment methods and sent straight to Jeff Bezos to be used however he sees fit. Our very DNA has been hijacked as a tool for consumption. This kind of corporate control is scary.

If corporations can control consumers using some of the methods they are now then the market we are operating under really isn’t free. We consumers need to retain the ability to walk away. To say no to products, to avoid algorithmic advertisements, to keep our own data private. If we don’t have that leverage, we’re cooked.

Picture a town farmers’ market. You can largely assume the products you’re getting are safe and ethical - they mostly come from your neighbors. Each individual farmstand doesn’t hold enough market power to price gauge or collude. We can hold the products to examine quality and determine price. We can ask the person who grew or raised the product how it was produced or where it came from. And we can even barter or trade. Consumer power is strongest in these smaller environments, and it’s best for the prosperity of our communities, too. Critically, when we make a purchase in these free markets, the transaction doesn’t follow us home. No targeted ads, no personal data changing hands. Just a simple exchange between supplier and consumer. The way things should be.

Share

When we think about free markets so much of the conversation tends to center around how free corporations are to act as they please. We often judge how free a market is by how constrained business is: the fewer the regulations the freer the markets, and vice versa. I think we’ve sort of got the picture backwards. We need rules and regulations to protect consumer freedom in a marketplace. Proponents of capitalism and free enterprise should judge market freedom on the ability of consumers to make the best decisions they can, not corporations’ ability to shortcut safety, ethics, and fairness.

People can make choices - I know I can continue to make better ones - regarding what they purchase and how they spend their time. But the scale has certainly been tipped against us in this supplier-consumer relationship. Government can also make choices. To balance the scale, we need rules that prevent poison in our food supply, anti-competitive practices in our industries, and harm to our people, landscapes, and animals. We can start simple by saying that Quaker Oats can’t market their strawberry oatmeal as strawberry oatmeal if there aren’t strawberries in it! We can do more to limit how consumer data is collected, used, and shared so that our decisions in any market are truly our own. To ensure that they are free.

Government policy can do more to move us closer to the farmers’ market model of doing business. Free exchange, healthy foods, keeping our money in our communities. Not to mention the warm and friendly feeling of doing business with your neighbors that truly can’t be found at Shaw’s (sorry Shaw’s). We deserve this free marketplace for our health, our ethics, and our community. We deserve a government that will work on behalf of our consumers, our small farmers, and our local grocery stores - not just big businesses. Our freedom as consumers and our ability to choose will rely on it.

Dylan

Young people are struggling and the statistics are everywhere. In 1975, 45% of young adults aged 25-34 had reached four significant milestones defined by the Census Bureau:

1. They lived on their own, away from their parents.

2. They had jobs in the workforce.

3. They were, or had been, married.

4. They had children.

In the last 50 years the number of 25–34-year-olds who have reached all four traditional mile markers of adulthood has been more than halved, falling to 21% in 2024. A Census study reveals that young people’s priorities have shifted over time from family-oriented milestones toward economic ones.

A Pew Research analysis reveals similar trends. Young people are working full-time while chasing financial independence, but lag far behind previous generations in key markers of adulthood relating to family: buying a home, getting married, and having children.

A notable gender gap exists in this data. Young women today experience more financial independence than the women before them, while the opposite is true for young men: they are working and earning less than previous generations of young men.

We’ll stop to make note of a few positive explanations of this, first. More American women today are going to college, entering the workforce, and pursuing careers. They are attaining financial independence like never before, despite still being paid less than men on average. As a result, the average woman is having children later by choice. Also significant for the “child in household” milestone reduction (and not obvious in numbers or graphs) is the amazing decline in teen pregnancy and birth rates that has taken place over the past 60 years.

Subscribe now

The financial pressures on young Americans are plentiful and may explain this “unchosen delaying of adulthood” I’m writing about today. The price of housing has increased exponentially in recent years, far faster than wage earnings. As a result, the average first time homebuyer in the US is now 40 years old, a record high. Median rent in the United States has climbed year after year to over $2,000 per month. Now, more young people than at any time since the 1940s are living at home with their families.

“Moving back with their parents is a choice many are making these days as they grapple with high housing costs, heavy student debt, inflation and the kind of broader economic precariousness that has increasingly weighed on younger people in recent years.” - Elizabeth Napolitano, CBS

I threw a lot of stats at you right from the jump, but it’s because I want to make this overarching point: traditional adulthood is being delayed for young people in America today. It is taking us longer to find jobs, save money, meet partners, get married, buy homes, and have families than it took previous generations. Is it our faults? Are we lazy? Do we have different values?

“Findings suggest that young adults today prioritize economic security over starting a family, reflecting the rising burden of housing, food, gas and other costs.” - Census Bureau

I’m going to make the case today that young adults are prioritizing economic security over other trademarks of adulthood because we just haven’t been able to achieve it yet. We are focused on economic security because everything else requires a baseline of security that is taking younger generations longer to attain for reasons largely out of our control. Essentially, we aren’t able to climb the adult ladder because the first step is broken.

I’ll use step number one, finding a job, as a case study.

The First Step: A Job

The job market for young adults and recent college graduates poses unique challenges to job seekers. Whereas young college graduates used to experience better employment rates than the rest of the workforce - as college serves as a four-year upskilling investment - today, the opposite is true. Since 2022, the unemployment rate for recent college graduates is unusually high while unemployment in the rest of the labor force is at historic lows.

The hiring rate, how often employers hire employees - representing the health of the churn in a fluid economy - has declined profoundly. “The economy is full” says Derek Thompson.

A frozen hiring market of course harms the people who haven’t yet been hired, most. The first step of the ladder for young people has sort of been chopped off, at least temporarily. If there’s no job available in my field, which I’ve invested tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars in via my degree, I’ll have to settle for something I don’t want to do and/or is lower paying. Or, worse, nothing at all. This is, of course, not the promise people my age were given growing up that informed our decisions to go to college, pursue our fields, and accept debt to do so. But this should also concern current job holders. The fluidity required in a healthy labor economy is what in part creates the conditions for raises and promotions. If I’m unhappy or deserve to be paid more, I’ll change companies to something that suits me better. But when hiring is frozen, it locks people into the roles they currently hold and eliminates the opportunity for employee leverage: I could leave, so you should pay me more. Right now, nobody can leave because the other companies just aren’t hiring. There’s nowhere to go, so there’s no leverage to wield when negotiating with your boss. When the labor market is stagnant, wages and conditions don’t improve. Essentially, the deal you have now is the deal you’re stuck with, until the market starts churning again.

Why is this happening?

1. Unpredictability in the economy: The last few years have been… something. The Pandemic first froze everything (hiring, production, work itself) then juiced everything with stimulus. After Congress’ stimulus injections, free flowing money everywhere allowed firms to hire more, invest more, build more, etc. Now, we’ve privileged ourselves with most unpredictable president ever: tariffs, investment cancellations and claw backs, deficit spending, and war. President Trump is a nightmare for the financial department and budgeters at any private company, state and local government agency, or school. Markets love predictability, and it has become near impossible to predict how much money will be available and what input costs will look like for firms across the country. You can imagine a company of scale trying to build next year’s budget without knowing if their grant will still exist, or what the tariff rate will be for the products they import to put into their own. The typical questions (Do we need more staff or less? Can we give raises this year? Should we launch our next project?) have become harder to answer. When companies can’t plan their next steps, they simply don’t take them. They wait out the storm. Things stay the same, including hiring (or the lack-thereof).

   

2. Artificial Intelligence: What happens if (or when?) AI is able to complete entry-level work on its own? Or when it gets incorporated into workflows, improves efficiencies, and results in teams requiring fewer employees than before? This is what companies are betting on, and the layoffs have already begun to pursue it. I’m not sure what AI will look like in the workforce five years from now, but I know it won’t be the CEOs and executives getting replaced. It will be the secretaries, schedulers, speech writers, accountants, truck drivers, financial analysts, customer service, and paralegals. Companies used to have to hire someone to do graphic design, for example. And they’d hire someone to code and use Excel or make PowerPoints, too. And then a third person to research and write drafts. AI can do all of these tasks right now in minutes, reducing the need for human time and labor. I’m holding out hope that in the long run, AI won’t replace human work but rather serve as a tool to boost productivity (which is not finite). But I’m worried my hope is getting harder to justify. AI could permanently chop off the bottom rung of the ladder for young aspiring professionals, and we don’t have a plan for if and when that happens.

3. Inflation: Unpredictability prevents action and AI can replace work and limit hiring. This point is more simple: rising costs deter investment. Beneath the general layer of uncertainty is the steady and known trend of “shit just costs more.” Input costs rise, employee wages rise (at least nominally), and the cost of providing benefits, notably healthcare, has risen a lot. It is just more costly for firms to employ human beings. So, when they do employ somebody, they want to make sure they are getting their money’s worth. That’s not good for young people who have never held a fulltime job in their field before: we are investments. We don’t offer immediate returns - we need training, and learning, and experience before we can really boost a bottom line. Companies who are already strapped for cash due to inflation may not be willing to take on the investment of a recent college grad. As a result, the barrier to entry in the job market rises. A job that used to require a bachelor’s now requires a master’s. What used to be “entry level” work now requires 3-5 years of experience. Recent grads, high school and college, just can’t make that math work. Inflation is an opportunity killer.

4. Demographics: Older workers in the U.S. are staying in their jobs longer and earning more. The “age-pay gap” examines the difference in earnings between workers under 35 years of age and workers over 55. Research shows that the age-pay gap in the US over the past 40 years has increased by 61%, meaning that older employees are earning substantially more in comparison to younger workers. Why? Life expectancy. People are living longer and subsequently, are staying in the workforce longer. Older workers hang on to their jobs for longer, delaying promotions for younger workers in what used to be “prime earning years” and ultimately preventing positions at the very bottom from opening up for recent grads. While it is great that people are living longer, the employment fluidity we rely on has slowed and stalled. I’ve written about this phenomenon before in regard to housing:

   “People are living longer, which is a good thing. It also means they are aging at home. Housing markets rely on fluidity: when the elderly pass or move into assisted living, their homes re-enter the market for the next generation to buy. When retirees look to downsize, their homes become available to the next young family to move into. Problem is, it isn’t cycling: partly because people ae able to live at home longer, partly because of scarcity and high prices, and partly because of interest rates. You can sell your home for great money, but then where do you go? Economists call this phenomenon “golden handcuffs” and it creates a stagnating housing market, which in turn, encourages prospective homebuyers to leave or look elsewhere.” - from Everything is Housing, February, 24th.

   Well, it works the same in the labor economy. Imagine the career ladder where you work. If the senior executive works ten years longer because he is in good health, it means the woman in the role below him has to wait ten more years for a promotion to her “prime earning years” when she’s able to buy a house and start a family. Then, the young man in the entry level job below her has to wait ten more years to take her job, which will allow him to pay off his student loans. Which means there is no entry level job to be filled by a recent high school or college graduate. This is a real phenomenon happening right now, and it is entirely out of young people’s control. Everything (work, earning, homebuying, family development) is happening later for young people.

The job market has frozen. What are the implications of all this? Workers - most profoundly young workers/job seekers - are getting more and more pessimistic about their jobs or the chances of finding one.

“Younger workers today are more pessimistic about the job market than older workers. One in five workers aged 18-34 say now is a good time, compared with 41% of those 65 and older. Baby boomers (42%) and Generation X workers (33%) are significantly more optimistic than millennials (24%) and Generation Z workers (19%) in 2025.” - Gallup

It’s exceptionally hard for young people to find work in their fields that pays them a livable wage, considering the swelling cost-of-living. Young Americans are starting to perceive the “American Dream” as unattainable. And that’s a problem for all of us.

Taking Alternative Paths

If I believe the American Dream is unattainable, as many young folks today do, where am I to go? If young people don’t believe that pursuing an education will help them secure employment, they’ll stop learning. If they don’t think they can earn enough to afford life, they’ll stop working and find alternative modes of income. If the disconnect between young men and women grows and we further entrench ourselves online, they’ll stop dating, marrying, and having kids. If they don’t think they’ll ever be able to buy a home, they’ll stop saving. If they don’t believe government is responsive to their problems, they’ll stop voting or vote for destruction. If they don’t believe that the American Dream works, they’ll seek to blow it up.

This is a doomsday picture, but bits and pieces continue to creep into our reality. More young men in particular are looking to online sports gambling, cryptocurrency, and prediction markets as nontraditional forms of income. They’re looking to the “manosphere” online for guidance and support. Or, for some nihilistic young people, they are simply not. Not working, not socializing, not voting but doomscrolling and doom spending without hope. This picture is real enough that we all should care about the wellbeing of young people for our collective good, right now. We don’t want the American Dream to blow up, we want it to work. Right now, it just isn’t for young people and they’re crying out for help. Can we blame them? Or, given the circumstances is their behavior actually rational, in a sad way? However they feel, whatever they are saying, we have to hear them. People need hope.

So What?

We often criticize young people when things don’t work out for them: they’re too lazy or not bright enough or lack focus. I think we should stop and zoom out for a moment, though, because the game has changed - but our response hasn’t. The economic challenges facing young people today are real: adulthood is taking longer to achieve. These economic challenges have real consequences - culturally and politically - for the health of our nation. We need to restore the idea of the American Dream through real and tangible policy practices. We need to restore hope to the future of our country. How good is a runner who doesn’t believe he or she will finish the race? How good is a runner who no longer wants to cross the finish line? We need our young people to be strong runners. We need to clear the obstacles from the racetrack.

We all play a role in this, but here’s what policymakers must act on:

1. Build more housing. Lower the cost of housing and give young people a reasonable goal to save for.

2. Contain the cost of education. College tuition has gotten out of control. Recent grads are strapped with debt (trust me on this one) as job opportunities have tightened.

3. Make a plan for AI. What happens if AI takes entry level jobs? What if it replaces work for large swaths of the population? We can’t go into this blind.

4. Regulate social media. We did go into the social media era blind, and we’re paying for it now. Get kids off screens, make rules for algorithmic content, and hold corporations accountable for damages.

5. Improve access to childcare. Newsflash: both parents work now! As I mentioned earlier, there are some positive reasons why people are having kids later in life. But cost is also a big reason. We should help.

6. Fix our politics. We need an effective, stable government in this country that responds to the demands of the people. We don’t have that, but we could if we made rules surrounding our elections.

Donald J Trump will serve two terms as an American president. Read it again, and let it sink in. In New York City, Zohran Mamdani, a self-described Socialist, was elected as mayor in large thanks to college-educated young people who voted for him at an 84% clip. Eighty-four percent of young people with a college degree in NYC voted for socialism. Something is wrong here! Young people are looking to political destruction on the far Right and far Left like a baby cries when it has been left unattended for too long. Responsible parents don’t tell babies their feelings are misplaced, they try to figure out what’s wrong and fix it. We can’t look at young people crying out and demand they fix themselves. The struggles of young people today are not of their creation, rather we are products of the world around us. Just like everyone else.

I spend a lot of time with young people, because, well… I am one. I see this stuff every day. There are a ton of inspirational and aspirational young people out there that give me a lot of hope for the future. There are a ton of young people out there with a whole lot of potential who are left wondering where they are supposed to start when the walls are this high. Pretty much every friend of mine is focused on barebones economics: how can I earn more than I owe in order to achieve what every generation before me has? It’s a tough equation to try and sell someone just starting out today. But it’s an equation that must hold true - the validity of our democracy relies upon it.

Share

I had a friend my age ask me recently: “Why should I vote for a either side when they’re both trying to divide me? It’s hard to vote for candidates when they’re all shallow puppets for the elite. How do we fix this without a generational idealist in office or by refusing to vote in a broken system?” I understood where he was coming from, and I think most people will. Politics and, notably for young people, economics are not working like they are supposed to. When they don’t yield acceptable outcomes, we lose hope. My friend and I had a thoughtful discussion about what can be done, and why keeping hope is important.

I worry more about the young people who stop asking these sorts of how can we make things better questions. I worry they’ve given up hope, gone numb, or lost the desire to build a better world out of this one. Why save this money when I won’t ever be able to buy a house? At least I’ll enjoy riding this bet while I watch the game. Why vote when I can’t make a difference? Why shouldn’t I litter when climate change is going to kill us anyway? Why work hard? Why read books when my knowledge is not valued? At least I’ll get some dopamine from the YouTube rabbit hole. This sort of doom-trap is also understandable, if people really believe that their dreams are not attainable. But it’s economically and socially damaging. It makes people less productive, less social, less attached to reality, and, as it turns out, more hateful.

It’s taking a real toll on young adult’s mental health, too. Nearly 3 in 5 young adults lack “meaning or purpose” in their lives. Half report “not knowing what to do with my life.” Fifty-six percent say financial worries along with 51% who say achievement pressure are negatively impacting their mental health. Almost half believe “things are falling apart” in the world. Roughly the same number feel they don’t matter to others. More than a third reported loneliness. Thirty percent worry our political leaders are incapable of solving our problems or are flat out corrupt. This is a problem. A big one.

“A lot of what we’re calling a mental health crisis is an economic crisis showing up in the body. Anxiety, depression, addiction, disordered eating — the rates have climbed in near-lockstep with housing costs, healthcare costs, and wage stagnation. That doesn’t make these problems any less real. it means we’ve built an entire medical industry to treat symptoms produced by conditions we refuse to change.” - Hanna Horvath

Young people aren’t condemned to this encroaching reality. They need a strong signal that what they do with their lives matters to their ability to achieve their dreams. They need help, and they’re asking for it in a litany of concealed ways. We - you, me, and leadership - must hear them. It’s not to say that we young people are absolved of responsibility - that is not what I’m asking for. I’m asking that we recognize that the game has changed for younger generations, and that we change with it. I’m asking that we hear a group of people in need, and that we listen.

Dylan

Take Trump’s first term, for example. In the 2018 midterms, Democrats netted 40 seats in the House of Representatives and regained power of the chamber. Holding the House, Democrats were able to launch investigations and subpoena officials in the Administration. They could steer committee hearings and leverage policy. Ultimately, they used the power they had gained in the midterms to impeach the President, twice.

Something similar is about to happen in November. Democrats will win large numbers in the House and regain the chamber. They’ll win a couple Senate seats back, but probably not enough to hold that body. The House will investigate the legality of some of the President’s actions, including his relations with foreign leaders and the gifts he’s accepted from them, his cryptocurrency ventures and the billions of dollars in wealth he’s accrued since becoming president, the legality of ICE’s actions, the constitutionality of his war in Iran, and much else. Given how impeachment faired last time, I don’t expect it again this term (though it may be more fitting now than it was then).

The electoral success we’ve seen for Democrats in the last year or so will likely continue all the way through 2028, when President Newsom or Harris or Buttigieg or Ocasio-Cortez or Shapiro or Whitmer or Moore (or someone else - take your pick!) takes the oath of office on January 20th.

It may be hard to see now, but in a couple years, Democrats could be feeling pretty good about themselves. I can imagine a line of thinking where leftists in 2028 feel as though they’ve “righted the ship” so to speak. Trump is off the ballot for good, JD Vance wasn’t able to corral and sustain the MAGA base, and Democrats diligently learned their lessons from 2024 and redefined the party on a more grassroots platform. MAGA, a fierce backlash from a waning political movement, has finally been extinguished. It is time to implement a new era of American politics and governance.

It may be easy to look out from this singular moment in time and feel a perpetual sense of confidence. Unless things change in a hurry, we should feel anything but.

A Red State Shift

We have to look beyond 2028 to forecast our nation’s political future. I’ve written a bit about Vermont’s demographic struggles and how they are troubling the state’s economy and education and health systems. But politically, these same struggles can be extrapolated out for the whole nation. The demographics of the nation are changing - important to my case today is where people are living. A variety of conditions (higher foreign-born population, increased willingness of Americans to move, policy and cost-of-living push-pull factors) have resulted in the following trend:

Today, more than 60% of Americans live in the South or West - an all-time high. Just in recent years, we’ve seen population shift toward the Sunbelt, where costs are lower, jobs plentiful, and weather warmer. Forty-three out of fifty of the fastest growing zip codes in America are in Texas, Florida, and Arizona. I used this map in a prior article, but it applies here too:

While not every state can be fit neatly into a linear trend line, I think a trend does exist: Republican-led states are gaining population while Democratic-led states are losing it. Republican states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, Idaho, South Carolina, and North Carolina are growing - Americans are choosing to move there. Democratic states like California, Hawaii, Vermont, Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts are shrinking or stagnating.

There are a few outliers of course, and I don’t have explanations for them all. West Virginia, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Mississippi are all Republican-led or found in the popular Sunbelt region, yet their populations are declining. My explanation: they are four of the poorest states in the country. When people are looking to move, they are looking for opportunity and affordability while maintaining a certain quality of life. You can find that in Houston or Boise or Charleston (SC), where housing is plentiful and jobs persistent, taxes are lower and temperatures higher. There are things for young people to do, colleges, universities, restaurants, parks, daycares, etc. There is a level of prosperity inherent to a lifestyle in say Nashville that maybe doesn’t exist in many parts of West Virginia or New Mexico.

Share

But those are outliers - back to the important trend. I’ll use Idaho as an example. In 2000, the Gem State’s two most populous counties, Ada and Canyon, totaled 423,345 total residents combined. Since then, the two counties have added another 415,295 people - a near doubling of their population in the past quarter-century. This is extraordinary growth. Numbers wise, it’s as if every single Vermont resident from Chittenden, Rutland, Washington, Windham, Windsor, and Orleans counties packed up their bags and settled in Idaho’s Treasure Valley over the course of 25 years. But it’s not Vermonters who are moving to Idaho - it’s Californians. Most the people I work with are originally from California or Oregon or Washington state. Many of our friends here are from Cali. It seems like almost everyone we meet is.

Californians are moving in droves to Idaho for lower cost housing and affordability. And they’re bringing their politics with them, but maybe not how you’d think. The following map from Vote Idaho shows the political affiliation of voters who have relocated to Idaho.

Red states signify that more Republicans have moved to Idaho from that state than Democrats. The darker the red, the higher the proportion of Republicans relocating. The blue states… don’t exist. Seventy-seven percent of Californians moving to Idaho are Republicans. That’s higher than the share of Republicans already in Idaho, meaning that in general, California is not sending its infamous liberals but its minority conservatives to Idaho, and they are making their new home more Republican, not less. It reflects a larger trend in American life and politics: people voting with their feat. There is evidence to show that Americans have been moving to places that better suit their political identities.

“Of the nation's total 3,143 counties, the number of super landslide counties — where a presidential candidate won at least 80% of the vote — has jumped from 6% in 2004 to 22% in 2020.”

This may not sound like an important societal issue - people can move wherever they want. But this geographic/political sorting is likely dividing the country even further.

"Groups of like-minded people tend to become more extreme over time in the way that they're like-minded," says journalist Bill Bishop. "They are still sorting themselves in ways that end up that places are increasingly Republican or increasingly Democratic," he says. "Then you can see that playing out in Congress. There are fewer people in the middle. And so politics becomes less about solving our problems anymore. It's about cheering for our side. And so we're stuck."

This isn’t my main point today, but I think it’s an important one to mention. It’s good for society when we surround ourselves with people who are different than us. People who have lived different lives and hold different perspectives. It is healthy for democracy when Republicans and Democrats are literal neighbors - it helps us see the humanity in the other side, and in each other. And critically, it forces our elected leaders to somewhat do the same.

My main point today isn’t so much about geographic sorting, though it’s an important takeaway. My main point is that Republican states are growing and Democratic states are shrinking, and from my angle it is happening because of affordability. Regardless of what happens in 2026 or 2028, there could be a real reckoning for Democrats after 2030, when the next US census occurs. Political power could shift drastically toward red states, entrenching lasting Republican majorities in Congress and in state governments across the nation. From my perspective, given the current rendition of the Republican party we have today, this could be disastrous. Democrats have to take affordability seriously in order to keep and attract residents to blue states. If they don’t, nothing else matters.

Trump is No Fluke

Along the lines of the “righting the ship” logic, when we look back from our 2028 perch, we may feel as though our country has finally skipped over a rough patch. We may view Donald Trump and the MAGA movement as a temporary backlash to a predestined future: one with globalized trade, abundant green energy, celebrated diversity, and a more progressive tax code. I want this future but caution myself from believing it inevitable. It can be easy to see American history as a linear path: we started out rough, and got better (more prosperous, tolerant, educated, etc.) over time, with a few dark spots mixed in. But the more I study history, the less I believe that progress is inherent. It must be earned.

Here’s an example of what I mean. After the Civil War, the 15th Amendment was passed, ensuring Black men the right to vote and run for office in America. Reconstruction meant federal troops occupied the former Confederacy to protect those rights. During this decade of Reconstruction from roughly 1867-1877, 16 Black men were elected to Congress from southern states like South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and more. It was a remarkable feat, considering that most of these Congressmen were slaves just a few short years before heading to Washington. By winning the war, freeing the slaves, and guaranteeing democracy, America had progressed. If the story ended here, the linear path theory might hold true. But it doesn’t.

In 1877, Rutherford B. Hayes struck a deal: he would receive the presidency, and in exchange would take federal troops out of the South, ending Reconstruction. In the troops’ absence the ashes of the Confederacy asserted itself again, reclaiming state and local governments and ushering in the era of Jim Crow. The former Confederate states implemented poll taxes and literacy tests and used violence and intimidation to keep Blacks from voting. By 1901, not a single Black southerner remained in Congress. In fact, it would be 71 years until another Black southerner was elected to Congress in 1972, after the Civil Rights movement had helped enshrine the Voting Rights Act of 1965, restoring federal protection of voting rights in the South. It took not only the changing or progressing of hearts and minds but the strong stoke of an executive pen on a legislative text, brought to life by a movement of people and organizers and messengers to form the powerful triumvirate of American progress - hearts, minds, and deliberate action - that moved us toward a better nation.

Subscribe now

I tell this story to highlight that outcomes are not predestined but controlled. Jim Crow was a deliberate tactic to prevent Black Americans from exercising their rights. And it worked: for nearly a century, America lost the battle for progress. We moved backwards from 1877 on. Marin Luther King Jr. has one of my favorite quotes that I’ve used in this newsletter before: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” It’s a hopeful message, and I think it’s mostly true. It feels criminal to amend any wisdom Dr. King graced us with, but perhaps this needs more context: the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice so long as we bend it.

American history is deeply complex, far more than any line of linear progress could portray. There is perhaps no natural course of history, as we often like to believe. If we want progress, we have to earn it. Today is no different. It is my strong belief that Donald Trump represents a movement working against progress on many fronts. But there is no “waiting this out" - President Trump is no fluke.

When Joe Biden was elected president, I was a senior in high school. January 6th had just happened, and I remember feeling relieved that the Trump era was behind us. I was no Biden fanatic, but I was tired of Trump. I wrote for a class project “Biden is not the loud and obnoxious personality that Trump was… and I believe that to be appropriate for the President.” My 18-year-old language reveals something about my view at the time: “Trump was.” Was - passed tense, in the past. Trump is in the past.

It wasn’t true then and it won’t be true two-and-a-half years from now when Democrats recapture the White House. Trump didn’t luck into the White House, either time. He represents something very real in America, something palpable I’m still trying to understand. He’s likely a result of an accumulation of factors: globalization, immigration, technological change, war. More rawly: fear, scarcity, loss, abandonment.

None of these factors are going away anytime soon. In fact, they are intensifying. The conditions for MAGA will persist beyond the next couple elections, and they’ll be supported perhaps by nothing more than today’s topic: the U.S. census.

The Census

In 2030 a new census will occur. People will be counted, surveyed, and we’ll get an updated idea about who lives in America, and how and where they live their lives. Importantly, Congressional representation is reapportioned every decade through the census, meaning that states which lose enough residents can lose a number of House seats they are allotted in Congress, as the House is apportioned by population. The opposite can also occur: if a state gains enough new residents, they can be given more representation in Congress. The number of Representatives in the U.S. House is set at 435, so if one state gains a seat, another must lose one.

It is estimated that after the 2030 census, California will lose a number of seats in Congress due to population decline there. Texas, on the other hand, will add some. This map is a bit dated (it doesn’t consider recent redistricting efforts), but it makes the point I’m trying to:

Congress could look a lot different in the near future. More durable Republican majorities in 2030 could sink a Democratic presidency. And this reapportionment could also send more electoral votes through the college to the Republican nominee for president in 2032. The Brennan Center describes how the path to the presidency could become arithmetically more difficult for Democrats in future years:

“In 2024, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris could have won the Electoral College by winning the states she carried, Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District (Nebraska allocates some electoral votes by district), plus the so-called Blue Wall battleground states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

By 2032, that strategy would no longer work. Given the shift of electoral votes to the South, even if a Democrat in 2032 were to carry the Blue Wall states and both Arizona and Nevada, the result would be only a narrow 276–262 win.”

Democrats may do a lot of winning ahead of the census, but thanks to demographic trends, it appears Republicans have the inside track to power in the next decade. When Trump leaves office on January 20, 2029, we shouldn’t think of it as the sun setting on his version of America. Just like Trump isn’t a fluke, he isn’t a beginning or an end, either. He’s a nexus: what comes next is up to us all.

No Victory Laps

For the reasons I’ve provided, Democrats cannot take victory laps in 2026 or 2028. We need to look beyond these milestones to a 2030 census that appears seismic - and not in a good way. I suspect if the current political landscape holds, upcoming Democratic victories will be in spite of rather than because of, meaning swing voters will be voting against Republicans more than they are voting for Democrats. These elections won’t constitute great mandates; Democrats shouldn’t be inclined to execute a great sprawling agenda full of controversial policies in 2027 or 2029. Rather we should take the boost, exercise some restraint, and work tirelessly to lower the cost of living for workers and families. Otherwise, the pendulum will be swinging right back.

We need to begin reversing the demographic trends currently beseeching blue states, and fast. To avoid sustained MAGA majorities, Democrats of all levels, but primarily state and local, must change course and champion affordability like everything else depends on it. Because it does.

Let Me Paint You a Picture

If you are a Republican reading this, you probably think this all sounds alright! If you like Trump, and are happy with the current administration, you may think this is pretty great. If you are a Democrat, this essay probably makes you pretty uneasy, and rightfully so. We simply may not agree, but regardless of your political affiliation, here’s my pitch for how, without a trend reversal, the 2030 census could be really, really bad for America.

As of writing this, President Trump’s approval has reached an all-time low. Most economic problems persist: high prices, stagnant wages, etc. (Trump is -38 on the economy, -46 on inflation). Our country is at war in Iran, and the next closest thing in Latin America - and our alienated allies are not coming to help. Tariffs have restricted trade and innovation, and the U.S. has lost manufacturing jobs in the past year. While the federal government was not able to come up with the funds to help people access health care or provide flood relief to Vermont, the Trump Administration was able to find enough loose pennies to scrounge up a $4.5 trillion tax cut plan (which disproportionately benefits the wealthy) and fund a war in Iran to the taxpayer’s tune of $1 billion every single day.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been unleashed largely upon American citizens and legal residents, at voting and workplaces, and (as we discovered in Vermont) without regard to due process or court-issued warrant authority. ICE violated the 4th and 5th Amendment in this Vermont case and has undermined the 1st and 2nd in Minneapolis and elsewhere. And to do what? Half the people detained by ICE have no criminal charges whatsoever. Seventy-three percent have no criminal convictions (that “due process” thing). Only 5% of ICE detainees have had violent criminal convictions, the “worst of the worst.” Illegal immigration is wrong and nobody wants criminals in our country. Violating the Constitution is worse, and we haven’t gotten any safer because of it.

But Trump hasn’t stopped there. We’ve touched on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments so far. How about the 10th? The federal government has infringed upon states’ rights in an alarming manner. No approval from governors when deploying the National Guard. Attempting to muscle voter rolls and private information (your information) from Secretary of States (for what purpose?) Right now, and maybe most consequentially, superseding state’s authority as election administrators to ban mail-in voting (which is safe; he uses it) and make casting a ballot more difficult for those who are eligible.

Next up on the chopping block: birthright citizenship. The Trump Administration is seeking to end this fundamental feature of our republic: the conclusion that anyone born on American soil is an American. Where does it go from here?

In the year 2000 we eradicated measles in the United States. Now, a quarter-century later, it’s back. Due to declining vaccination rates for the disease, which has been encouraged by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s revision of the childhood vaccine schedule, measles is making a comeback.

“Since January of 2025, there have been 3,564 confirmed cases in 46 states, mostly among children and teenagers. This is the largest number of cases in an outbreak since 2000, when the disease was declared eliminated in the U.S.“

Since 2025, three individuals, including two children, have died from an eradicated disease. Science, not just in health but also in energy and technology, has been rolled back with severe harm. And, again, for what? It doesn’t have to be this way.

This is my picture of Trump 2.0. Clearly, I’m no fan: all of these things are making our country worse. Our rights are under threat, our economy is not working for us, and our politics and culture are more divisive than ever. I’ve heard the term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” used to describe the condition of leftists who don’t support the actions of the Administration. What do you call the condition for those who see what’s wrong but still do? We really shouldn’t be calling each other names, we’re adults. I am genuinely curious though, if you support President Trump, what are you getting out of all this? Is there a line he could cross that would cost your support? Leave a comment below and I’ll try to keep my mind open:

Leave a comment

If you see Trump 2.0 as I do, 2030 is not a welcoming date. The census could realign American politics to the right. Congress and the Republican presidency after 2032, the result of reapportioned House districts and electors thanks to unparalleled population growth in red states, could cement a more permanent Trump 2.0 across the country. We can look to the states for examples.

This year, the state of Idaho House of Representatives passed a bill asking the Supreme Court to essentially reverse the legalization of same-sex marriage. Every classroom in Idaho, by law, must show pro-life content during the school year. The content is grossly inaccurate in depicting pregnancy, and teachers are not allowed to add context or answer student questions. The propaganda must be shown to every developing brain in Idaho, no questions asked. It’s a warping of reality on par with what I’ve experienced working in Ada County. The state of Idaho is projected to end the legislative session with an unconstitutional budget deficit over $50 million. The state government cannot afford to pay for its aggressive tax cuts as they ask departments to further reduce spending. It’s fiscal malpractice of the highest order, and it is always regular people who pay the price. Public schools in Idaho are being gutted in favor of more ideological and religious private and charter schools, that not everybody has (or wants) access to. Social services, like speech therapy for children with autism, are on the chopping block. The state has even considered implementing a new double-digit statewide sales tax to make up for lost revenue, the most regressive form of taxation.

Other red states like Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas have passed laws requiring the ten commandments displayed in public school classrooms, an extreme intertwining of church and state that would make the Founding Fathers recoil. Florida has banned more books than any other state, followed by Texas, Iowa, and Tennessee, a trampling of the right to free speech and freedom of the press, and a state of censorship only George Orwell could accurately describe. And following the Supreme Court’s reversal in 2022 Dobbs, red state governments across the country inserted themselves in the personal pregnancy process by revoking the right to privacy and bodily autonomy that half of our population used to enjoy everywhere in the nation.

But if these subjects are either too floofy or too obvious for you, here are some real quality-of-life determinants that describe what living in many red zip codes looks like across the nation, where MAGA already runs the show.

Your chances of literally dying earlier are higher if you live in a red state, where life expectancy is noticeable lower.

Not only is life expectancy lower in red states, but it’s also hardly improving over time. In Oklahoma, life expectancy actually decreased in the last century. With all of the advancements in medicine and technology over 100 years, how is that possible? Poverty and access, by design.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, leaving significant gaps in health care coverage. More low-income people going without the care they need due to lack of insurance living sicker, and shorter lives.

Health outcomes (and subsequently life expectancies) are worse in red states. Here’s an example: maternal mortality. Partly due to poverty, lack of coverage, and policies that work against reproductive health, 58 women in every 100,000 dies in childbirth in Louisiana. The U.S. average is 17, but if Louisiana were a nation it would rank after Ecuador and right before Libya. That’s embarrassing, and it’s wrong.

One in four children in Mississippi is born into poverty. Households earn lower incomes and workers are paid lower wages where Republicans have dismantled unions and collective bargaining. Students generally perform better in school in blue states, though that gap is closing.

“Texas, despite its trillion-dollar economy, maintains the highest uninsured rate in the nation at 18.8%. Florida, despite massive budget surpluses, ranks 44th in healthcare access and has the most regressive tax system in America. Meanwhile, Vermont, with an economy smaller than Corpus Christi's, provides near-universal healthcare coverage. Maine, with half of Florida's GDP per capita, achieves better education outcomes. New Mexico, despite being one of the poorest blue states, still manages lower maternal mortality than wealthy Texas. This isn't about money. It's about choices.“ - Christopher Armitage

The poorest states are overwhelmingly Republican-led. They contribute less to the federal government and receive more welfare from Washington as a result. The 10 poorest states in America are Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, in terms of poverty rate. That’s 9-1 for folks keeping score at home. This just can’t be a coincidence.

I point all this out not to rub it in anyone’s face in the annual red vs blue football game, but to offer a sort of preview if Democrats don’t get their act together and this MAGA thing sticks. This is a wild reality: people are moving in droves to places where they won’t live as long, will have fewer rights, where they will face regressive taxation and extreme inequality, and where their kids will receive a worse education because the cost of living is that high in blue states. We can’t blame people for these decisions: they are actually rational. If you can’t afford a home, you’ll move somewhere you can. And that is where red states are winning: on housing and on costs. We’ve got to get this through our heads.

If we don’t, the miserable, frankly heartbreaking results we see in red states today will leak everywhere. A true, lasting MAGA majority in Congress could do what Republican majorities have done in state legislatures across the country, for all of us. This is not what I want for our country. In Vermont we have a saying “don’t New Jersey my Vermont” meaning keep it clean and rural. The real fear now, however, is that the 2030 census will help Republicans in Washington turn Vermont not into New Jersey, but Louisiana or Mississippi.

We have to flip the script.

Affordability First

We must lower the cost of living in blue states to attract residents. If we don’t, none of our other goals for the nation (like strong public education, universal Pre-K, climate resilience, or diversity) have a shot. Think of the progress that has been lost during Trump 2.0 in areas like advancing our energy grid, strengthening our disaster response, creating a more equal society free of hate and prejudice, or making our tax code more fair. Now imagine what a decade of this could look like. We need people. Everything else is out the window.

I’ll use Vermont as an example, because it’s what I know best. As I’ve written before, we’re losing people. We need more housing and lower costs - in education, health care, and just general taxation - so that we can attract more residents. It’s clear we won’t birth ourselves out of this problem.

That makes sense for Vermont’s economy. But it makes sense on a political level, too. It’s not likely that Vermont will gain representation in Congress, regardless of how many people we attract: we’re just a small state. But zooming out, other states could. New York, California, Massachusetts, Oregon - the states scheduled to lose representation in 2030 - have to do more to reverse these trends. But even in little old Vermont, we have to do our part. We have to contribute to the collective signal that blue states are great for all the typical reasons (education, lifespan, health care, rights) AND you can afford to live here. We too have to change course toward affordability. Indeed, we have a responsibility to do so.

Nothing Set in Stone

I want to make very clear that none of what I’ve described today is set in stone. It’s a prediction I’ve made from a trend I’ve watched, and I could very well be all wrong. Things could change: Trump policies could change immigration and domestic migration trends. Population changes could depart from their current courses on their own. Blue states could adapt and make new policies and programs to attract residents. More or less people could participate in the census. Questions could be added or changed to manipulate results.

I could be missing something: Is the current demographic shift slowing down, or stopping? Have I overgeneralized the geographic sorting I described earlier? Is population growth more complex than just raw numbers (i.e. is the makeup of the population important here in impacting the politics of growing red states?) Texas may gain four new House seats but what if they also become more competitive in the process?

There’s a lot to consider that I don’t have the answers to. Things could change and my interpretation may have holes. But even if that’s the case, I think the overall message still stands: blue states need to usher in demographic revivals via affordability if they hope to be politically relevant in the long term.

And we rely on their relevance. The current Republican party, in my eyes, has proven itself incapable and unqualified for governing. Not just in Washington, but in states across the country. A sustained Republican majority could drastically alter our institutions, our rights, our economy, our values, our culture, and our future for the worse. I’ve yet to see much evidence that they would do anything else.

Republican states have figured out a recipe for success, however, where Democrats have failed: affordability. People will live where they can afford to. We need to understand thoroughly that housing, food, and economic security are immediate and primary needs on Maslow’s hierarchy in ways that electric cars, diversity, the Constitution, and even one’s own lifespan are not. I love all of these things dearly - they are vitally important. But the evidence tells me that people vote with their feet, and they more-often-than-not will vote for a lower cost of living and increased economic security before anything else. If we want to get to the other vitally important public policy issues, we Democrats must come to terms with that reality, and rectify it.

I don’t mean to scare, startle, or divide - that’s the opposite of my goal for the NorthStar Narrative. But I’ll admit, I’m worried about this trend and the upcoming census - and I don’t hear many people talking about it. Affordability has become the new buzzword in politics - it’s all the rage. I think what’s missing for me is the urgency. We need more housing and more people in Vermont and elsewhere, yesterday. We need to reduce the tax burden in Vermont and other blue states, and significantly, or we’ll keep squeezing people out. That may come with serious sacrifices. It may be hard. But doing hard things when its right is what leadership demands. The ability to do hard things now to avoid catastrophe later is what exemplary leaders are made of.

We’ve reached the nexus point. It’s time to climb the hill.

Dylan

While I haven’t stepped foot under the Golden Dome this year, I can almost feel the tension from where I sit. There are some noteworthy dynamics at play: lawmakers recognize the urgency to act on issues of affordability as constituents stare down another property tax increase this year. Property taxes have increased an unsustainable 40% over the past five years across the state, and everyone knows something must change. But nobody can agree quite on what. This year is an election year, so whatever lawmakers come up with, they’ll have to answer for at home in their districts. There is immense pressure for those seeking reelection to act, but not to act “wrong.” In fact, doing the “right” thing may mean some legislators lose their jobs in November. Here’s an example:

We are going to have a property tax increase this year as the cost of education continues to rise. The original estimate projected double-digit average increases. The House recently passed legislation offering to use a combination of reserves and unspent money to lower this year’s tax rate increase to 7% - still no fun. Governor Scott wants to use all available reserves (over $100 million) to buy this year’s rate increase down as much as possible, somewhere closer to 3 or 4%. House Democrats have agreed to set aside money for next year’s inevitable increase (which will come on top of this year’s, knowing that buying down what property owners pay does not erase the actual cost increase). Governor Scott wants to use it all now. I’m on the House majority’s side here: reduce the increase some this year but set aside some money for whatever may come next year - likely another big increase. State revenues are stable for the moment, but were they to falter in the near future (already a time of extreme uncertainty), we could have a cataclysmic tax crisis on our hands. Seven percent this year hurts, but to use every penny now seems irresponsible to me. In my opinion, the House bill is the “right” thing to do in a room full of wrongs. But voting for it won’t be popular, and the Governor will certainly weaponize the decision on the campaign trail if his looming veto is overridden.

Perhaps emboldened by the 2024 election, when Republicans gained historic electoral victories in the statehouse, Governor Scott has been less cooperative and more assertive in 2026. He has set the terms of the session knowing that Democrats have lost their easy path to override his vetoes which they enjoyed gluttonously prior to the last election. Governor Scott has promised to veto the House property tax bill, demanding lawmakers meet his mark and spend the full amount of reserves this year. From the outset of the session, he also pledged that he would not sign a state budget unless the legislature enacted his education reform bill, Act. 73, to his pleasing. A lofty threat that looms large over complex negotiations.

It can be hard to follow all the details of a legislative session that has twisted and turned as much as a Vermont backroad. The stakes are high - for lawmakers’ political futures and the state’s fiscal. And the dynamics are not always constant: rank-and-file Democrats have split with party leadership on education reform, for example. The most significant issues are still up in the air. How they fall could shape the state’s future. Today, I want to address two of Vermont’s most pressing pieces of legislation: Act 73 and Act 181. While I don’t pretend to understand every legislative detail, I hope my interpretation can help move this necessary conversation forward.

Subscribe now

Getting Caught Up

What are these policies and where do they stand today?

Given how controversial these two bills are, it's ironic to remember that they both were hailed as sort of “grand bargains” upon their passing.

Act 181

I remember when Act 181 was passed in 2024. I was an intern in Governor Scott’s office when the legislature overrode his veto of the bill. The legislation is an update to Act 250, Vermont’s landmark land use law. Act 250 was passed in 1970 and essentially requires an in-depth permitting process any time someone wants to build housing developments or industrial projects in Vermont. In order to build, projects must prove to the state that they won’t harm water supply, soil, or habitats, that they won’t create too much traffic or overburden local infrastructure, and that they’ll fit in with the state/region/town “aesthetics.” The goal was to conserve the environment and Vermont’s natural beauty and character. But anyone in construction will tell you all this regulation sounds slow, and slow means expensive. This is an eagle eye view of the tension in land use: environmental activists want to limit construction, housing advocates want to build more. Insert Act 181.

Act 181 updates Act 250 by splitting the state into three tiers. There’s more nuance here, but in the simplest terms they look something like this:

• Tier 1 - Priority growth areas: Tier 1 is where the state has decided it wants the most growth to occur. It has provided exemptions from Act 250 restrictions while creating a streamlined permitting process to allow for more housing and development. Places that fall into Tier 1 are downtowns and village centers that already have established water and sewer systems. The thought process is that development is 1) logistically easiest here, and 2) least encroaching on the environment. You can think of Burlington, Essex, Rutland, Montpelier, and White River Junction as Tier 1 designees: Vermont’s urban, concentrated localities. Tier 1 allows for more building than Act 250 permitted before 181 was passed. Less regulation, more building. Tier 1 is a green light for housing.

• Tier 2 - Intermediate areas: Tier 2 is a step down from Tier 1. It encourages development in areas outside of urban centers, but with more strict review. The towns surrounding Burlington are a great example: South Burlington, Williston, Colchester. They aren’t as dense as Burlington but still have some of the infrastructure that housing construction requires. They’re on main roads, they have existing water and septic, they have suburb and mixed-use potential but aren’t quite seen as hubs of activity. Tier 2 is a yellow light for housing.

• Tier 3 - Conservation areas: Tier 3 represents the areas the state wants to “protect” from development. Development in these places (think Northeast Kingdom or Green Mountains) triggers full Act 250 review. Tier 3 discourages building and construction in these rural areas which tend to feature large blocks of forests and/or farmland. Tier 3 is a concession to environmentalists, whereas 1 and 2 are wins for housing advocates, hence the “grand bargain.” Tier 3 is a red light for housing.

In Vermont, as in most places, most people live on a small portion of the land. Act 181 aims to enshrine that trend into statute: build more housing in dense areas and less in rural ones.

I saw the trouble with the bill in 2024 when I supported the Governor’s veto from my intern desk, but it’s just coming to light now. Act 181 was supposed to go into effect this year, but significant public backlash has caused lawmakers to revisit.

Rural Vermonters have expressed worry that Tier 3, along with the “Road Rule” - which limits the length of new and combined driveways by triggering Act 250 review - mark an infringement of private property and bar growth, commerce, and prosperity from areas that arguably need it most. Their pushback has made a difference.

“The grassroots pushback has reached legislators in a way that is genuinely unprecedented, particularly for a land use law. And the most striking thing is that it isn't being run by an advocacy group or nonprofit. It is a movement of ordinary Vermonters. Farmers, landowners, small business owners, retirees, and working families who share concerns about their ability to live in rural communities and have the same opportunities as Vermonters in cities, downtowns, and villages. They organized, showed up, and legislators are listening.“ - Maggie Lenz and Gwynn Zakov

The legislature has decided for now to push the implementation of Act 181 back a couple years to give people time to absorb and understand the implications. Governor Scott and Republicans want a full repeal of Tier 3 and the Road Rule, which, while it is a politically potent stance to take, undermines the whole “grand bargain” thing that made this bill possible in the first place. Democrats want to keep 181 intact, but delay its implementation, which reveals much about their mindset. This debate will continue, but I think it boils down to two starkly different views on life in Vermont:

• Environmentalists, generally with the support of Democrats, view land and people at odds. The growth, development, and prosperity of man take away from the natural health of the environment, our landscape, and our character. That’s why much of the state needs “preserving.”

• Rural Vermonters, with more Republican support, view land and people as one. Living on the land, be it recreationally or professionally, is in and of itself an act of conservation. Rural Vermonters don’t want to be preserved by state government, they want opportunities for their families to thrive, too.

The two groups will have to reconcile these differences at some point. Governor Scott is trying to force the issue now, by threatening to veto the delaying bill, which may seem counterintuitive unless he has the votes to strike Tier 3 and the Road Rule this session. His worry is that Democrats will slip this one under the rug until the political environment is more favorable, and they can implement Act 181 as is. Maybe he’s right.

I had reached about this point in my writing when I heard the news from the House: Speaker Krowinski and Rep. Amy Sheldon (D), chair of the House Environment committee and initial drafter of Act 181, are calling for the repeal of Tier 3 and the Road Rule from the bill. This is a huge turnaround: just a few weeks ago, Sheldon said she was not open to rolling back these conditions. But the protests and testimony given against them has had a profound impact on lawmakers. Lawmakers left and right now appear willing to forego Tier 3 and the Road Rule all together, measures they voted for in droves in 2024. No doubt politics is at play here: they remember the ramifications of the election that followed that session and can see the political potency in the display of deep frustration coming out of rural Vermont in regard to 181. We’ll see what the Senate has to say soon enough, but momentum is strongly against these provisions.

Act 73

Act 73 is Governor Scott’s education reform bill. Last year, the bill was passed by the legislature with flying colors. Among other things, it seeks to move Vermont’s education system to a foundation funding formula, which most states already use. Under a foundation formula, the state would set a base level of funding per pupil, taking into account students with disabilities, special education, and English learners who are more costly to teach. It would move a significant amount of budgeting power from local school boards to Montpelier, which is contentious in its own right.

More contentious however has been the Governor’s effort to consolidate schools and districts. Key to Governor Scott’s view of the spending problem is a demographic paradox I’ve written about before: Vermont schools continue to lose students as the budget continues to grow. On the surface, that equation seems backward. But given how we pay for education it should be exactly what we expect. The Governor’s remedy is a simple one: if we have fewer students, we don’t need as many districts (and inevitably, schools) to educate them. By consolidating schools and districts, the state can cut back on some administrative positions (fewer principles, deans, district staff) and more easily share resources (special education staff, bus drivers, linguists). As I’ll touch on in the next section, fixing the problem just isn’t that simple.

Act 73 commissioned a task force of experts and legislators to draw up maps this past summer. These hypothetical maps would offer the legislature three proposals for new school districts with the intent of whittling the total number down from 119 to 10 or 12. I say “hypothetical” because they were never created. After months of deliberation, the task force recommended Vermont find ways to share resources amongst its districts, but did not suggest mandatory consolidation as a means for cost-saving. The Governor called it a “failure” and lawmakers have been grappling with how to proceed ever since.

Share

Now, there’s a bill. Last week, the House passed H.955, which aims to share resources between schools, move Vermont to a foundation funding formula, and ask neighboring districts to study their ability to merge, and the implications that could have on their students, taxpayers, and school communities. For example, H.955 might place Windsor, Woodstock, and Hartford in a group and ask the three school districts (WSESU, Mountain View, and HSD) to map out what a new consolidated district could look like (“now taking the field, your home team the yellow hurricane wasps!…”) If the towns like it, they could move forward and merge. If they don’t, they’ll stay separate. Here is where the line has been drawn: Governor Scott wants mandatory consolidation on a faster timeline. The House has offered voluntary consolidation with more local control and at a later date. The two are on a collision course.

Here’s Where I Stand

While there is a lot of important business underway at the statehouse, these two debates are the most significant for Vermont’s future. They are deep, structural, philosophical conversations about the direction of the state, and this year’s session could prove a pivotal moment. I’ve tried to be as balanced and analytical up to this point, but now I’m taking sides. I want to offer you my lens for how I look at education and land use - you’ll notice I look at them through the same rural lens - and hear your thoughts after I do.

Act 181

Act 181 is the “good” and the “bad” I mentioned in the byline of this article. It is getting a ton of attention, and mostly for the negative reasons: rural Vermonters don’t want to be overregulated by the state. But we also don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, either. Tiers 1 and 2 are critical steps toward building more housing and stronger communities in Vermont. Their implementation should go on, it just shouldn’t come attached to tightened restrictions in Tier 3, and that’s the bargain 181 originally struck. I was critical of the bargain when it came to fruition in 2024, and I’m critical of it now for two reasons I thought should have been obvious to lawmakers back then, before the pressure of politics set in.

1. Private Property: One thing about me (and I’m kind of surprised at how often I find the opportunity to bring this up in conversation) is that I’m a huge supporter of private property. Maybe it was growing up on 20 acres in Hartland that did it for me, but generally speaking, I believe people should be able to do what they want on, and with, their own property. Your kids should be able to build their first home down back if they choose. You should be able to build a sugarhouse up on the hill without asking Act 250 for permission. Your neighbor should be allowed to put in a driveway longer than 800 feet on the parcel he just bought down the road. And we should be able to do it in Hartland and Brownsville and Glover and Sheffield, not just Burlington, Rutland, and Essex Junction. My position on private property is both practical and philosophical: practical in that ownership creates the incentives for socioeconomic productivity, and philosophical in that it’s your damn land! You bought it! On a serious note, the right to private property is central to Western democracy and capitalism. While both institutions could use some work, we can’t forget how much we’ve gained since Locke’s enlightened views on individual rights. Let property rights be a tool, not a foe, in the pursuit of progress.

2. Rural Prosperity: Rural prosperity, and prosperity generally, is tied to property rights. But 181 is no foggy philosophical enlightenment debate. The bill is clear: more housing, commerce, and healthy schools in already more developed parts of Vermont, and less everywhere else. If you’ve been reading my work, you understand that my position is that Vermont needs people to reverse our spending spiral. We really aren’t in a position to say no to housing anywhere. As an outdoorsman, I get it: we need to protect the environment. But its core to my beliefs that protecting the environment is more effective when working with, not against, rural communities. It’s also sort of a luxury good. People need to be comfortable paying their bills, secure in their employment, and confident in their children’s futures before they can put a solar panel on their roof or buy a new electric car. If you care about the environment, you should care about elevating the prosperity of rural Vermont. Sure, some land is off limits for habitats, healthy forests, and clean water (also core values of mine). I just think we’re doing a bit more restricting than is necessary, and it’s costing our state and communities.

If I were in office, I’d strongly support Tier 1, Tier 2, and the repealing of Tier 3 and the Road Rule in Act 181. This has sort of become the “popular” thing to say recently, but it’s the right thing. It’s my hope that Democrats will work with the Governor to make this happen before the end of the session, as to not let it linger down the line. I think this is an important flashpoint for Vermont, which often gets described in two: Chittenden + Montpelier, and everyone else. It is important economically, as I’ve described, but also culturally. It is important to say to “everyone else” that we, state government, have your interests in mind, too.

More from me on this topic:

Act 73

After House Democrats’ flip on 181, Speaker Krowinski tied the bill to another: Act 73.

“Vermonters have been clear that a top-down approach, whether it be land use policy or the administration's proposal to force school consolidation into five districts, is not the right approach for shaping the future of our state. - Speaker Jill Krowinski (D-Chittenden)

And she’s right: Vermonters don’t want mandatory consolidation in education. Primarily because Governor Scott’s plan just isn’t going to work in a meaningful way. The administration has seemingly taken the mindset that Vermont’s future is doomed by its present; that we can’t turn around our declining population so we must succumb to it. I just refuse to accept that premise. I don’t think the administration is dreaming big enough.

The Governor wants to consolidate schools, and he’s somehow convinced many Republicans who represent rural districts to get on board. But there is scant evidence to support the theory that consolidation will lower costs - the whole goal of doing it in the first place. Vermont already did this: In 2015 Act 46 initiated mandatory school consolidation, and clearly, it didn’t work. We’ve moved down from 273 districts to 119, yet the cost burden still exists, and our students are testing at lower levels of academic proficiency. Prior efforts to consolidate have yet to yield significant, uniform savings and property taxes have continued to rise. But here we are, trying again.

There is a popular “local control” argument that often gets made in this space and deserves its own consideration. Vermont towns have a lot of say in what happens with their schools - more than in most other states. Act 73 - if carried out to the Governor’s pleasing - would shift more decision-making to Montpelier in regard to budgeting, school choice, and the decision to remain open or to close. It’s an argument that comes with a lot of heated feelings and certainly holds real consequences. (Given how intertwined the state’s education system is, it is however worth discussing what decisions should be local, and which should be made at the state level). But today, I want to focus on the fact that I simply don’t think consolidation will work. I think it’s the strongest argument against Act 73.

One of the reasons consolidation doesn’t save money has to do with teacher pay. When districts merge, teacher pay is equalized across schools. All the 1st-grade teachers (my favorite class when I was a substitute!) in the district get paid the same, regardless of school. But key here is that the equalizing is always directed upwards: lower paid teachers have their salaries raised to meet their higher paid counterparts in the new consolidated district. This function basically erases any cost savings districts can find in eliminating a handful of admin positions.

But the main reason consolidation doesn’t save money is that the number of districts doesn’t really have a ton to do with the cost increases on a systemic level. The cost of providing health insurance to school employees, however, is at the root of this problem. I owe readers a full article on American health care, but I’ll touch on it here. The cost of health care has increased far faster than other goods in America.

And notably, private insurance expenditures per enrollee have grown at a rate twice as fast as government insurance.

This means a lot in Vermont, where the low volume of providers and insurers combined with an aging population has helped to create nation-leading health care costs. In short, we need…

• More young, healthy people in Vermont to balance the insurance risk pool,

• More health care staff to reduce the current shortage,

• To allow and support independent providers to reduce dependency on expensive ambulance rides and hospital visits,

• To find efficiencies in our existing hospital systems,

• To invest in preventative care through our food supply, education, and overall wellness in order to reduce medical consumption, especially of specialty drugs and procedures,

• To find ways to move the administering of care away from a fee-for-service model,

• And to really explore what a regional, universal primary care system could look like if implemented in northeast states.

I’m no expert in health policy, but I know something has to change. The rising cost of care is pushing up property taxes and premiums at the same time federal premium subsidies have expired. The cost of care is bankrupting the state and households as the Governor continues to push for consolidation. In my eyes, he’s rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Worse, by shuttering rural schools, Act 73 could nail a sign on the door of many of our communities - “DO NOT MOVE HERE.” People like to live in towns with schools and businesses open doors in towns with workers and customers. Scott’s scarcity mindset poses a real threat to these places and their ability to prosper going forward. He seems to me to be chasing a symbolic victory - look, we’ve done something. But unfortunately, there is no quick fix to issues this engrained. Solutions will have to come at the root of the cost increases: healthcare and population decline. We don’t have to submit to declining population and enrollment in our schools. In fact, we can’t. We have to flip the script on the narrative of today so that tomorrow’s story reads a little brighter. Gov is right that statewide reform is needed, but he has misdiagnosed the core ailments. If we really care about the rising cost of education, we’ll pull some of the strings I’ve recommended to lower the cost of healthcare. At the same time, we must grow our tax base, fill our schools, and support our rural communities - not give up on them.

My take if I were in Montpelier? Drop the consolidation gambit. We’re wasting precious time that could go towards making real changes in public health and financing to reduce the property tax burden on a systemic level. The issue of health spending isn’t going away, no matter how many districts we have. Keep the foundation formula, keep the resource sharing, focus on health care, and scrap the mandatory mergers.

More from me on this topic:

Wrapping Up

There is a lot of ground that could still move on the most consequential issues facing state government this legislative session. And if Governor Scott upholds his threats, we could be here well into the summer before things are resolved. The budget is on the line, our education system is up for review, and our land use laws are transforming. I want to emphasize how important these items are: whatever comes of Ed and Act 250 reform will have lasting implications on the future of Vermont. I don’t have everything figured out, but I hope my assessment today could help bring the actions of the statehouse closer to you in some way. I offer my own stances, not as firm facts but as an honest starting place. I believe in rural Vermont and property rights like I believe in our education system and the towns who support it. We have real work to do, work that only conversation can continue. If the recent backlash to Tier 3 and the Road Rule of 181 have taught us anything, it’s that public involvement matters. You and I have voices that do get heard. We can influence the public policy process here in Vermont.

So, with that, what are your thoughts on 73 and 181?

Dylan

Leave a comment

Happy reading!

Dylan

Like many Vermonters, returning home for academic breaks and summer recess can feel like your life has finally slowed down. When I come home, the noise of college life fades and is replaced by the tranquility that defines rural Vermont. Only after attending school elsewhere for my first two years have I wondered if this stems from the fact that my responsibilities no longer lie near home, or if it is something inherent to the Green Mountain State. Reflecting on this now has helped me see what originally influenced my decision to leave and pursue my education 500 miles south, to the Northern Virginia/D.C area, rather than attend an in-state school.

My first thought towards that decision was not just rooted in the fact that I craved a different experience, but also in the reality that Vermont offers limited opportunities for federal-leading career pathways in my field. Sure, most major Vermont colleges and universities offer degree programs in political sciences, including comparative and American politics, or even international relations as a whole. However, those seeking degrees in more specialized fields like defense studies, intelligence, or homeland security are often left with the choice to choose a more general state-hosted degree program or look elsewhere. While the political science programs in Vermont are academically rigorous, few offer more specialized coursework paths or a close proximity to professional networking, which is essential to students chasing after these kinds of degrees.

Financial considerations are another major deciding factor when it comes to choosing secondary education. Although state schools tend to be significantly cheaper, you have to look at your opportunities as strategic investments. This is especially important if one is interested in a private institution like Bennington or Middlebury College, where base tuition starts at $65,000-$70,000 a year, regardless of where you live. Examining the long-term trajectory of where an institution can help take you is essential. Where you choose to attend college significantly impacts the people you meet, opportunities you are presented with, and how you chase success. We can’t think of secondary education through a lens fixed solely on the upfront costs - though there’s much to be desired in reducing the sticker price of college. When weighing the college decision it is the prospective future returns that is most important. To use literal investing as a metaphor: it is important to know the stock price when you buy, but it’s more important to believe that what you’re buying will be worth more tomorrow than it is today. The decision if, where, and when to go to college is a cumulative valuation of the experiences you’ll have, the people you’ll meet, the degree you hope to hold, and what you will do with it all.

Another angle of the in-state-out-state dynamic can be explored looking at student demographic data from the University of Vermont. Whereas in most states, flagship public universities enroll large numbers of in-state students, UVM does not.

“The University of Vermont, the state’s flagship, land-grant public university, has come to fill an unusual role. It educates relatively few students who actually hail from Vermont. Instead, the institution caters in large part to students from elsewhere. Over the past two decades, the number of undergraduate Vermonters at UVM has decreased by about 300. Meanwhile, the university’s student body has added roughly 3,800 out-of-state students.” -VTDigger

In fact, only two public universities in the country educate fewer in-state students - and they’re both fully online. This trend reflects a few factors, which largely mirror upstream challenges facing Vermont’s K-12 education system and demographics:

• We simply have fewer high school graduates in Vermont today due to our declining population in the state.

• In general, fewer Vermonters choose to attend college than in many other states.

• Individual factors, like personal preference.

Despite receiving relatively little in public funding from state government, UVM has managed to achieve something remarkable: nearly half of all Vermonters enrolled there go to school tuition free. This means that the university heavily relies on billing out-of-state students more: along the lines of $30,000 per year more. Their ability to make money off of out-of-state student tuition rates can significantly improve university tools and their ability to self-sustain. Enhancing research opportunities, updating technologies, and overall improving academics can make huge impacts on college communities when there is adequate funding. This would suggest that attracting out of staters works to the benefit of UVM financially and also ensures quality and longevity, a seemingly win-win scenario for the institution.

“If we relied just on Vermont students, we would be a fraction of our size, we’d have a fraction of our talent base, and you can think through what that might look and feel like at the flagship university,” said Ron Lumbra, the chair of the university’s board of trustees.

Despite these benefits, it also poses major accessibility issues when it comes to in-state admissions. With universities prioritizing this out-of-state revenue, it can make admissions more competitive for in-state residents who are hoping to attend a school closer to home. And going back to the point on investing, we want to make sure our state is investing in folks who plan to hang around after graduation.

If I wanted to stay in Vermont for college, there were many very real factors that I had to weigh: limited program offerings, financial considerations, and program accessibility for local students. Ultimately, I choose to go right to the source and enroll in an International Security and Law program at George Mason University in northern Virginia. Enrolling here gave me the option to study what I was motivated by while still spending less than I would if I attended a private institution in Vermont. I also recognized how rich the area is in resources for being so close to the nation's capital. Opportunities like interning at non-profits, think tanks, and political entities would all be up for grabs.

It’s no secret that a non-local and more expensive education can create burdens, but it's also important to recognize that it often reflects a justified investment and yields opportunity that pays its way. Still, each time I return to Vermont I’m reminded of why so many people come back and use the state as a home base. Hard to replicate elsewhere is a place rich in community, tranquil scenery, and a life pace that is much slower than what many are used to.

Whether I decide to move back to Vermont in the future is a bit more complicated. Seeing shifts in funding, increased partnerships amongst universities and the job market, and additional policies that would help young adults would make a huge difference for me. Here’s what Vermont must do to help keep people like me in the Green Mountain State:

• Support the acquisition of skills and diverse educational pathways for Vermonters. Applying policy to this goal is an essential step to supporting students and workers who want the option to stay.

• Increase public investment in universities throughout the state to allow for new programs to be added to curriculums while relying less on revenue from out of state students.

• Increase partnerships between universities and employers in niche but expanding fields like defense, intelligence, security, and STEM. Providing resources to some of these fields would diversify the programs that universities offer while also supporting economic growth.

• Address the affordability crisis in education, housing, and healthcare to make the state more livable for recent grads and young Vermonters looking to get their start.

Paired with the foundation of an already established high quality of life, these factors would ensure that new opportunities grow alongside the young adults that want to work hard and give back to our beautiful state. I may not have chosen to get my postsecondary education in Vermont, but it is important to the state and to Vermonters of all interests and socioeconomic backgrounds that the option is a strong one.

Julia Conway

Julia Conway is a current junior at George Mason University studying International Security and Law. A native of Proctor, Julia attended Rutland High School, where she graduated in 2023.

The host wouldn’t pick up the phone. She texted me to let me know she doesn’t take phone calls. She said she also doesn’t text for “security” reasons, and that I must communicate with her through the Airbnb app. So I downloaded the app, signed in, and found that she had been sending me all the necessary information to check in to the studio through the app. We found our key in a lockbox on the fence, scanned into the property, and found our way to the apartment.

I’ll admit this is a luxury complaint, a “first-world-problem” if you will. And maybe I should have known I needed the app. But I didn’t, and after a long drive, this incident really frustrated me. I booked online, why should the host send me essential information through the app I didn’t have? Why couldn’t she take a phone call or text? Why does it seem like many of the modern innovations we’ve created to make life more convenient, like Airbnb, have actually made it less?

After we got settled in, we headed to our first event of the trip: an NBA game between the Utah Jazz and Washington Wizards. Now, I knew ahead of time that this wasn’t exactly going to be a premier matchup; both teams lie near the bottom of their respective conference’s standings and have been eliminated from playoff contention. But this is the NBA! The world’s premier basketball league would still put on a show. Both teams had in fact made trades since I bought the tickets to acquire better players: Trae Young and Anthony Davis for the Wizards and Jaren Jackson Jr. for the Jazz - all multi-time all-stars and a future hall of famer in Davis. While the teams weren’t very good, I was excited to see some of their premier players compete.

Just like when I pulled into the Airbnb parking lot, I was again confused when the starting lineups took the court. And again, disappointed. Four out of ten of the starters were players I recognized - remarkably low for a hoops junky like myself. In fact, I only had ever heard of five players who stepped on the court in Salt Lake City on that March evening. Box scored below:

Many of these players are rookies, G-league or two-way players, undrafted or recently signed roster fillers. Where was Trae Young and AD? Jaren Jackson, Walker Kessler, Keyonte George? I saw Lauri Markkanen, the Jazz’s best player, relaxed in street clothes on the bench.

The result was predictable: a meaningless contest largely void of competitiveness. The players jogged up and down the court, knowing that the game they played in meant nothing to the teams they played for. A few uncontested yet still highlight-reel dunks from Ace Bailey were bright spots in an otherwise dim display of Naismith’s novel creation.

The NBA has a tanking problem. When teams know they won’t make the playoffs, they begin to intentionally lose games in hopes of acquiring a better draft pick for the following season. The Wizards and Jazz are both tanking, and have been for a while. The NBA uses a lottery system for determining draft order - the more losses a team accrues, the higher likelihood they get to choose first. Right now, the Jazz and Wizards are fifth and third, respectively, in the pursuit for the #1 pick.

To further exemplify the problem, here’s a wild stat: as of March 23rd, the three worst teams (IND, BKN, WAS) had collectively lost 39 games in a row. Remember, these are professionals. Any NBA team can win any game on any given night. The NBA’s issue is that they are choosing not to.

Now, they can’t explicitly try to lose - there are rules against that. So the workaround is what Ally and I watched in SLC:

I don’t want to downplay any injuries, but come on guys. In all, 14 players were ruled out due to injury or illness, most of whom just so happen to be the best players the two teams could put on the court. Surely the teams will fire their training and medical teams for failing to keep so many players healthy, right? Wrong. This is by design. The Boston Celtics played the Oklahoma City Thunder recently, and only six players were ruled out. The Thunder ruled out five bench players (not stars) and the Celtics ruled out one - Nikola Vucevic - who I watched injure his thumb earlier this season. What is the difference between the two games? The Celtics and Thunder are both good teams competing for a championship - they have strong reason to field their best players, play hard, and put on a show. And they did. The Jazz and the Wizards, already eliminated, have strong reason to lose as often as possible while keeping their best players safe from (real) injury on the bench. Or, in Anthony Davis’s case, at home (he didn’t even travel with the team to Utah).

ESPN put out a great article last week summarizing the tanking problem in the NBA. They describe bad teams sitting good players in the fourth quarter of games, using analytics to find statistically poor lineups to play, even coaches drawing up plays that result in intentionally bad shots. Tanking has begun earlier in the season - a race for the bottom - featuring promising young players fouling out early and teams even manipulating player value by sitting quality role players in contract years in favor of lower-level talent to help the team lose. Tanking has real career implications for players, it jeopardizes competitiveness in the game, and hurts business for the league. Yet it persists.

I could go on and on about tanking, load management, ghost injuries, and competitiveness in the NBA, but I include this story to highlight the same frustration with the Airbnb: everything is broken. It isn’t working like it’s supposed to. And that just plain sucks.

One thing that did work? The self-checkout machine I used to buy a $2.00 bottle of water. It worked so well in fact that the machine asked if I would like to leave a tip when I paid.

Are you f**king kidding me?

I think Airbnb and the NBA are reflective of a bigger trend facing society. Things keep getting more accessible, more efficient, and… worse? It calls to mind a phrase coined by tech critic Cory Doctorow: Enshittification. It is used primarily to describe the theory that technology and tech platforms have declined in quality even as they have grown in use and popularity.

“Google Search had become enshittified, showing ads and product links instead of relevant website results. TikTok had become enshittified, artificially “heating” specific videos so that some would go viral, inspiring copycats and goosing engagement while frustrating creators whose output didn’t get the same treatment. Twitter would soon become royally enshittified in its reincarnation as X, losing its status as a global town square, as it tipped into Muskian extremism and rewarded grifters and meme accounts over legitimate news sources. Spotify, iPhones, Adobe software, e-mail inboxes—it was hard to think of a platform or device that wasn’t seeing a decay in user experience. Wasn’t technology supposed to endlessly improve in the long run?” - The New Yorker on Enshittification.

I can think of examples in my own life. I originally downloaded Instagram to follow the news. Now, I find myself swiping through seemingly endless “suggested” content to get back to the pages I actually chose to follow. I have a Facebook profile to keep up with friends and family, and to share my work - things that are meaningful to me. Why am I watching my seventh reel of random dudes building all-time NBA teams? No, gym bro from across the country, I don’t need to put protein powder in everything I consume. Please, enough with the advertisements!

I opened my phone to do one thing and have closed my apps after 15 minutes of absolutely wasted time. I’ve got nothing to show for it, so what is the point and why do I keep doing it?

The truth is, the internet is getting worse at delivering user-friendly experiences and results. In search engines, companies can pay a fee to have their products boosted to the top of the results, bypassing any sort of quality standards and matching determinations. Amazon can use its leverage as a massive seller to squeeze out smaller companies through price and compliance schemes. Websites are filled with ads, clickbait is everywhere, and now AI is further slopping up the internet. Netflix intentionally creates low-quality content to play in the background of your phone usage. Between one and two out of every ten X (Twitter) accounts is estimated to be a robot. Shortform videos on YouTube, Facebook, and really every platform out there now robs the time we could be using to cook good foods, read new books, or have meaningful conversations with the people around us. The loudest, most outlandish voices are exemplified to enrich shareholders of platforms like TikTok and Meta because in the equation where clicks = dollars, truth has no value.

This is not the internet we asked for - this much is clear. It isn’t nearly as helpful as it could be, and it’s probably doing more social harm than good for the average person. This isn’t the hospitality (Airbnb) or entertainment (NBA) we asked for, either. And this certainly isn’t the politics we’ve asked for. An increasing number of Americans now identify as Independents as the Republican and Democratic parties become more unpopular.

I don’t think the two are equate-able, but for the sake of bipartisanship I think most of us can agree that there are people out there more fit to be president than Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Yet those were the nominees we got in 2024. I don’t think anyone believes Congress is working as it should, yet we continue to deal with a broken version of our nation’s most important legislative institution. Our politics, like our internet and our entertainment, is enshittified.

As Hannah Horvath puts into words better than I can in her article about “life admin” and the perils of modern adulthood:

“Technology promised to make life easier. But in many ways, it made individual tasks faster while multiplying them exponentially and scattering them across platforms that each demand a login you can’t remember.

The ‘mental load' captures this perfectly: anticipating needs, identifying options, deciding, monitoring — invisible labor that never completes because life’s demands are constant. It follows you everywhere. Modern adults make roughly 35,000 decisions daily, each drawing from finite cognitive resources. By evening, when that reservoir is empty, we default to what requires least effort: fast food, Netflix, scrolling.”

It doesn’t have to be this way, we just haven’t come up with a good solution yet. A good solution in my mind will take rules. I’ve been frustrated by some recent interviews, like this one from the New York Times with YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, that seem to seek moral or empathetic derivatives from platforms fueled by profit. We can’t expect YouTube or Meta or TikTok to act in our best interests if it cuts into their profit margins - that’s not how the business works. We can’t expect these platforms to police themselves like we can’t expect billionaires to tax themselves (talk about broken, check out our tax code!) We need rules.

We’ve been sold a series of lies by big tech and some of our other institutions, and because of it, things have gotten shittier. It’s easy to dive into conspiracy theories, but let’s focus on the truths right in front of us:

• Social media promised connection, yet Americans are lonelier than ever.

• We have numerous dating apps, yet people are dating less.

• We have countless streaming services to watch anything we’d like, but we need seven subscriptions just to watch the seven things we really want to.

• The internet has provided us with endless access to information at our fingertips, yet 70% of Americans fail basic civic literacy quizzes and we are further from consensus than ever.

We need rules. We can’t hope these issues solve themselves, that’s why I’m getting more and more excited to take them on. We need rules that fix our elections, as I have written about before. We need rules that protect our data from tech giants who sell it as a commodity to be profited from. We need rules that protect developing brains from harmful algorithms, like we protect them from marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol. We need rules that eliminate ultra processed ingredients from our food supply. We need rules that reclaim the internet - a universal resource - from the corporations who warp it for profit, to the people who use it for everyday good. The one we have now is no public square.

These are choices that government can make. In some cases, it makes the opposite choice or even plays on both sides. The American government subsidizes corn and soybean production that makes cheap, ultra processed foods, and then pays the bill for health care when the food system makes us sick. It subsidizes the oil industry and pays for disaster recovery (before Trump, at least) when hurricanes or flooding wrecks our communities. Government is the vehicle for creating and enforcing rules when things (like the internet, elections, tax codes, etc.) go awry. There’s no other arbiter. But in this moment, it is failing to make them, and people are noticing. It’s a big reason why trust in government is so low: it hasn’t proven itself capable of meeting the moment. It’s not the conspiracy theories that need addressing, it’s the real things right in front of us that are broken and need fixing. The things that are harming us all. The things that right now are just plain shitty.

On to my fifth attempt to schedule an eyecare appointment. Wish me luck!

Dylan

Are we really prepared for an energy crisis? 🌍💡

In my latest podcast episode, my friend and current master’s student at Stanford, Jasmine Blust sheds light on the fragility of fossil fuel supply chains amidst global conflicts. With rising gas prices and geopolitical tensions, it’s crucial to consider the volatility of our energy sources.

Jasmine emphasizes the importance of moving toward renewable energy to ensure sustainability and energy independence. She shares insights from her journey in energy consulting and how we can leverage domestic resources for a more resilient energy future. Transitioning to renewables doesn’t have to be a burden - it may be our saving grace.

The conversation dives deep into policies like the Jones Act that hinder our progress and the urgent need for reform. We talk Iran, China, and Taiwan to evaluate the geopolitics of energy in our world. We discuss American policies from the federal government and in states like California, Virginia, and Vermont to dig into our energy future here at home.

If you enjoy the nuts and bolts of policymaking, you’ll love listening to all Jasmine has to share. She has a wealth of knowledge on the subject that I found super enlightening.

Make sure you tune in to capture the full conversation! You can find the show on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube! I’ll send each episode out here in the newsletter or you can toggle over to the Across the Aisle Podcast tab on the home page. Thanks for listening - I hope you enjoy!

Dylan

“We [Vermont] are on the verge of being a theme park, where you can do really well and have a great life if you have means here or you’re coming to visit or recreate or relax… then there’s this underclass that is here to serve the people doing that - but nothing in the middle. If you just want to live a life, have a job, raise a family, this won’t be the place for you. That’s terrifying.” - LG candidate Ryan McLaren

Is Vermont on the verge of becoming a “theme park” as Ryan says? His message stuck with me, and if you’ve spent much time in Quechee like I have, it may stick with you too. The theme park-ization of Vermont (as I’ve decided to coin it) is at the very least worth discussing.

Perhaps one day from this past winter paints the best picture of the topic. Ally and I were driving up to the Upper Valley from Bennington, her hometown. After stopping in Plymouth to check out the snowy cemetery where Calvin Coolidge is buried (I had just finished reading a biography on the former president) we made it to Woodstock. The Christmas-dressed streets of Woodstock were lined with license plates from other states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, etc. The car in front of us came to an abrupt stop in the middle of Woodstock on Route 4. I thought something was wrong. The cars behind us lined up patiently as the driver got out of her car, opened her trunk, and messed with her belongings. When she finished, as the rear door of the SUV closed, it revealed a white license plate with red lettering: Massachusetts. The driver returned to her door - no look, no wave, no acknowledgment, as if nobody else was around - and continued driving down Route 4.

Maybe I was just ready to be home after a long drive, but this event really bothered me. How do you just stop in the middle of the road? And no wave? That’s Vermont standard practice! I wasn’t so much mad as I was in disbelief. The truth is, Vermont standard practice is to pull over when you have to stop your vehicle on a busy road in the first place. The wave is just plain decency.

If you live in the Upper Valley you’ve probably had a similar experience on the road in Quechee or Woodstock - localities with a lot of tourism - in the winter, summer, foliage season, well… I guess any time. Vermont is a charming place, and these are charming towns for people from less charming areas. You can ski and enjoy a picturesque winter wonderland for part of the year, or golf and enjoy Vermont’s lakes and rivers the other. And of course, the leaves turn magnificent shades of red, orange, and yellow in the fall, showcasing our world-renowned scenes of breathtaking beauty. We have “cute shops” on “artsy streets” run by friendly folks who call this home year-round. I think this is the idea of Vermont as a theme park that Ryan mentioned in the podcast. If I wasn’t a Vermonter, after all, I know I’d visit whenever I could.

We continued on to Quechee, where I wanted to show Ally the glass blowing at Simon Pearce - she’d never been. It had been a long time since I had gone inside, too - I spent more time jumping off the rocks into the river below Simon Pearce or driving past on my way to my buddy’s house in West Hartford as a high schooler. I was shocked by how full the parking lot was: nearly every spot was taken on the roadside and in the lot. Only one car other than ours featured a green license plate. I’d never seen anything like it. Simon Pearce isn’t exactly a spot for townies, but this sight was really something.

The inside was bustling - a great sign for business. We were there to look, but it was apparent everyone else was there to touch (and buy). I heard European languages, maybe German and French. I saw designer clothing. On one hand I felt out of place: this is my town, but I’m the only person like me around. On the other hand, I felt immensely proud: yeah, people come from all over the world for what my neck of the woods has to offer. On my third metaphorical hand I examined the impact of tourism on the local economy: this business is so great for Simon Pearce, for Quechee, for the Upper Valley, for Vermont. It’s confusing to hold so many complex feelings about one topic at the same time, but I know my experience is not mine alone: Vermonters broadly have a complicated relationship with tourism and the tourism economy. I guess I’m just now putting it down on paper for the first time.

I want to start by making this point as clear as a glass-blown dish from Simon Pearce: tourism is invaluable to Vermont’s economy. In 2023, tourism became a $4 billion industry in the Green Mountain State, thanks to 15.8 million visitors that year. People who come to visit Vermont (and spend their money) are responsible for 9.3% of our state’s total gross domestic product (GDP). The state average across the country? 3%. More than 30,000 jobs (roughly 9% of VT’s workforce) are supported by the visitor economy. One in every ten jobs in Windsor County is supported by tourism. It pays to be pretty (among other things), and subsequently, Vermont relies on out-of-state travelers more than most states.

“When we think about economic impact, it is helpful to think of our guests as temporary taxpayers,” says Tourism and Marketing Commissioner Heather Pelham. “This data reinforces that tourism is a huge economic driver in the state of Vermont. Every guest who buys a meal, spends the night, or hits the slopes is helping our businesses thrive, putting Vermonters to work, and benefitting our communities by paying taxes that help fund essential services and quality-of-life initiatives.”

Where are our visitors coming from?

What are they supporting when they cross the state line?

And they’re paying a lot of taxes: $282.3 million in 2023. That’s the equivalent of roughly $1,000 per Vermont household in tax revenue to our state and municipalities that Vermonters don’t pay, every single year. A tourism tax-credit, if you will.

It’s safe to say that most Vermonters will take the vehicular inconveniences in exchange for the economic boost tourism brings the state. We might roll our eyes (and occasionally make some comments under our breath) but we all understand the value traveling inside that New York suburban in front of us at the light. Now that I think about it, most jobs I’ve ever held at home were largely supported by tourism: waiting tables, mowing lawns, and working at a state park. My buddy and I might not have recognized everyone at the Mobil during the summer as we filled up the Exmarks, but guess whose lawns we were going to mow up on the hill in Quechee? Part-time residents and visitors were indirectly paying our wages.

Tourism is essential to Vermont, more than in most states. As an avid skier prior to a life-changing injury at Mad River Glen, I know Ryan McLaren knows this. But the point he made on Vermont becoming a theme park is a nod to the complexity of our state’s tourism economy. It is great for all of us that our tourism industry is so strong. It’s the second part of Ryan’s quote about the people in the middle that has me worried: “If you just want to live a life, have a job, raise a family, this won’t be the place for you. That’s terrifying.” As I wrote a couple weeks ago, Vermonters are leaving the state at a higher rate than anywhere else in the country. They aren’t just leaving; they are being priced out.

Ryan points out in the interview that his own parents wouldn’t be able to do today for their family what they did 40 years ago. They couldn’t afford their Essex home if they tried to buy it today, couldn’t afford to raise three kids today with the promise that they would receive the highest standard of public education. “That opportunity is crumbling all over Vermont,” he says.

“I feel a real sense of urgency to change the story, to make this place more livable, more affordable, better for kids like me… who just need a fair shot.” - McLaren.

This weighs on me, and I think it’s a real existential threat to the state’s future. Moreso than anything else. To no fault of our tourists, prosperity has become harder to come by for year-round Vermonters. Rising property taxes, suffocating health care costs, record home prices, and declining educational outcomes work against the shared vision we have for our state. It has become easier for folks from elsewhere to buy their second home in Vermont than for Vermonters to purchase their first. That’s wrong, and we’ve got to do something about it. Otherwise, the theme park-ization will continue.

I’m worried about Vermont becoming a theme park. A place where the wealthy come to play and ride all the rides (ski and golf resorts, lakeside houses, luxury downtown shops and restaurants) while the rest of us work concession and man the lines in order to scrape by in our own hometowns. I think there’s a balance out there where we can continue to grow our excellent tourism economy and Vermonters can thrive independently. A Vermont where main street businesses are owned and shopped by Vermonters. A Vermont where first-time homebuying is an expectation, not a near fantasy. A Vermont where health and childcare is affordable and accessible. A Vermont where Vermonters can leisure, too. A Vermont for Vermonters.

What I’m advocating for is a more robust, rounded Vermont economy. One where Vermonters, top to bottom, are prosperous so that we enjoy our visitors but don’t rely on them. One where the economic health of our communities is reinforcing: Vermonters with more financial freedom can support more Vermont businesses employing Vermont employees and paying more taxes from higher revenues to support more Vermont schools. Vermonters who aren’t excessively cost burden by housing, health care, and taxes are free to launch businesses, coach youth sports, volunteer, or spend their weekends camping at state parks like the one I worked at. The Vermont I envision for our future isn’t a theme park but a garden: where the corn does well because the squash does well because the beans do well because the corn does well. An economy that reinforces itself in virtuous prosperity. An economy where, so long as your roots are firmly planted in its rich soil, you can thrive.

We’re not there yet - the challenges are plenty. We need to build more housing to lower costs for young Vermonters. We need to address rising health care costs to make Vermont more affordable for individuals, families, and our school districts. We need to get back to gold-star standards in our education system and commit to rural communities that they are indeed a part of our prosperous future. We need to reduce taxes and undue burdens on our residents and set government on track for problem solving, not problem spending.

I’m going to continue pursuing this future for a more thoroughly prosperous Vermont however I can. Right now, it is through research, writing, listening, and learning. If there ever were a more deserving people, I have not heard of them. Vermont may be turning into a theme park, but I hope a fruitful garden lays in our future.

I’ll end on a lighter note - another story. In high school I was on Lake Pineo ice fishing with some friends and a couple teachers (yes, we ice fish during school in Vermont - it’s called learning in place). We had our holes drilled, hooks baited, and flags set as we grilled some hotdogs over a steel fire pit. One of my teachers looked up at the second homes that line the hillside above the lake in Quechee. He imitated an imagined, exasperated onlooker: “honey come quick, look, the locals have started a fire on the ice!”

See you next week,

Dylan

Last month, one of the Commissioners included in the newsletter a passage titled “What the Declaration of Independence Means to Me” in connection with the County’s ongoing celebration of America’s 250th anniversary. I was excited to read it but grew concerned about Commissioner Daley’s interpretation of the Declaration quite quickly. I was unsettled by the passage for two reasons: 1) it mischaracterized historical events surrounding America’s founding, and 2) blurred the line between church and state that is so fundamentally important to our nation. Commissioner Daley’s letter, as a head of government to professional public employees, was inappropriate in my opinion. Not only that, it struck a chord of Christian Nationalism that I found uncomfortable and wrong. You can read Commissioner Daley’s passage for yourself below.

Coming from a position of authority - and written in such a matter-of-fact manner - I almost accepted this passage as fact myself before the last paragraph struck me, and I gave the whole thing a reread. After my second run through, I realized this passage came into direct conflict with the version of history I knew to be true. Commissioner Daley missed the mark on the history of the Declaration and our founding fathers, but more importantly he advocated a mode of religious government not suitable for an inclusive and just society. I couldn’t let his narrative stand unchallenged, so I wrote him a reply.

Dear Commissioner Dayley,

I hope this letter finds you well. I want to begin by stating my appreciation for the County’s work in celebrating America 250 and the important anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I have taken the Commissioners up on your challenge to re-read the legendary document which still shapes our nation today. As an avid enjoyer of history and a man of strong patriotism myself, I look forward to what more 2026 will have to offer in this regard.

Largely driven by these same characteristics, history and patriotism, I have felt compelled to write you in response to your letter “What the Declaration of Independence Means to Me” in the last issue of the Commissioners’ newsletter. While I respect your right to interpret Jefferson’s document however you may choose - as the Declaration’s user guide, that is the Constitution’s most primary command - I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that the Declaration created (or was merely intended to create) a “God-centered framework for who we became as a nation” as you state in your letter. I believe this assertion is a misrepresentation of our history and, given your leadership position, a blurring of the line between church and state.

You are correct that “there are four times the Declaration of Independence mentions a deity.” You’ll notice, however, that the founders were intentionally vague in their description of divinity. They use the terms “Nature’s God”, “Creator”, “Supreme Judge of the world”, and “Providence” in the Declaration rather than more specific indicators of faith like “Christ” or even simply “God.” That is because the founders themselves represented diverse viewpoints on religion and spirituality, and in writing for a nation even more religiously diverse, they settled on ambiguity in hopes of unity.

There was no consensus among the founders on the issue of religion as a personal matter. George Washington was known to attend worship wherever he could - at Anglican, Quaker, and Catholic services, and even at Jewish synagogues. Washington was not a prolific reader or writer on religion, but often referred to “Providence” as a divine force in the world in his speeches - hinting that he may have been more Deist than outright Christian. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, was far more skeptical of organized religion. While he believed in God, Jefferson did not appear to believe in Jesus’ divinity, his resurrection, or the miracles of the Bible. A man of faith, he was not what we today, nor his contemporaries, would consider a “Christian.” As products of the Enlightenment, the founding fathers’ religious views were complex, diverse, and flexible, as seen in the language of the Declaration.

I believe your letter goes off course when you posit that religion and God are central to the “creation and proper functioning” of our government, and that the Declaration “created a God-centered framework” for our nation. Nowhere in the Declaration does Jefferson make any universal statements about religion and its relationship to the state. Quite the opposite, Jefferson declared soundly that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” not from God, Providence, or any other divine force. This government, America’s government, was and is to be delivered by the earthly hands of man.

The succeeding generation carried the torch of religious plurality and the separation of church and state (implied in the Declaration and mandated in the Constitution) forward. Seventh president Andrew Jackson said that “amongst the greatest blessings secured to us under our Constitution is the liberty of worshipping God as our conscience dictates.” As biographer Jon Meacham writes, Jackson believed that the freedom of diverse forms of worship - including the right not to worship at all - was central to the nation. Congressman (and future vice president) Richard Johnson of Kentucky agreed: “It is not the legitimate province of the Legislature to determine which religion is true, or what false. Our government is a civil, and not a religious institution,” he wrote in 1829.

The examples through history are abundant and the message clear: in America, the right to govern comes from the people, full stop. That means all people - Christian and Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist, religious and secular - are created equal and endowed by their Creator, whoever or whatever they determine that to be, with certain unalienable rights. “Governments are instituted among Men” to secure these rights: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As our local government, “deriving [its] just powers from the consent of the governed,” Ada County has a responsibility to put into practice the intent and instruction of the Declaration and the Constitution. The Commissioners have a responsibility to cherish religious pluralism and the separation between church and state.

While I appreciate and share your interest in celebrating America’s history, I fear your interpretation of the Declaration of Independence in your correspondence with county employees not only represents a misguided understanding of historical events, but is in direct conflict with government’s great and secular responsibility. Ada County is not a religious institution, but a civil one. As a leader of over 2,000 employees, your public interpretation of the Declaration begs the question for non-Christians who work and live in the County - do I belong here? If religion is an important part of the proper functioning of Ada County’s government, as you insist in your letter, then the answer would be no.

But that was not the intent of the founding fathers. Nor was it the intent of the Declaration of Independence, which was produced by a group of spiritually diverse leaders who recognized the centrality of freedom and the free expression of man, not God, as the framework for who we became as a nation. While we see the Declaration differently, I agree with you here:

“These words were significant and empowering then, and if we truly understand them now, they still are.”

I’m standing by to see if Commissioner Daley writes me back. In America’s 250th year, it has never been more important to protect our history from perversion. America is not and has never been a Christian nation or a nation centered on religion. The Declaration of Independence professes free expression and is unambiguously supported by the US Constitution. Religion has played an important role in America’s history - a role always envisioned to be separate from that of government. To suggest otherwise mischaracterizes our history and, whether intentionally or not, moves us further from the plurality that makes America special. I won’t let history be twisted nor expression be stepped on without speaking up - it’s just too important. We are free to worship as we see fit in this country only as long as religion remains distinctly separate from government. It is an essential intention of our founders and a necessary command of our Constitution.

One that takes accountability to maintain.

Dylan

Dylan

If you’ve never been to the National WWII Museum in New Orleans, spend a morning walking through exhibits that show you the view from a pillbox in Normandy, or the interactive maps of Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima. It’s worth the trip, even if just to take a break from walking down Bourbon Street with beignets in hand.

But for me, the most moving part of the museum was towards the end. The Liberation Pavilion closed with a small theater airing clips from interviews with those at the center of the war in Europe. I watched archival footage that has been shown countless times but never loses its power. Emaciated prisoners stepping hesitantly into sunlight after liberation. Civilians lining shattered streets, cheering as American soldiers passed through towns once held under tyranny. The images were not triumphant in the way modern politics often imagines victory. There were no grand speeches, no slogans. Only relief. Only exhaustion. Only the quiet recognition that something profoundly moral had arrived.

For a moment, I felt the weight of how the United States must have appeared then; not merely powerful, but good. That distinction has faded in our political language. During the Berlin Airlift, American aircraft landed every few minutes, delivering food and fuel to a city deliberately starved by blockade. There were no dramatic battles to celebrate, no victory parades. Instead, power manifested as persistence: pilots flying through harsh weather not to conquer territory but to sustain civilians. For many Europeans, this was another moment when American strength appeared inseparable from moral purpose — protective rather than predatory. The memory of those flights helped shape a perception that American power could be trusted, not merely feared.

We talk constantly about power, dominance, decline, strength, and greatness. But we speak far less about goodness. Perhaps we should start there.

Forget greatness for a moment. Let’s start with goodness.

Greatness as Competition, Goodness as Character

“Greatness” is an appealing word. It evokes pride, achievement, and ambition.

In politics, greatness often becomes shorthand for winning.

Yet moral traditions - religious, philosophical, and civic alike - have long distinguished between greatness and goodness. A nation may achieve greatness through conquest or domination; history is filled with empires that were undeniably great by conventional metrics. Few were good.

Goodness, by contrast, is not measured in rankings or power indices. It is measured in how power is used. It asks whether strength protects or exploits, whether influence uplifts or diminishes, whether leadership inspires trust or breeds resentment. For much of the twentieth century, people across the world believed, sometimes despite evidence to the contrary, that America at least aspired to goodness. That belief mattered. It created legitimacy that no amount of raw power could substitute. The cheering crowds in postwar Europe were not celebrating the arrival of the strongest army alone. They were celebrating the arrival of a force perceived as liberating rather than conquering. Moral legitimacy is not sentimental; it is strategic capital accumulated slowly and spent carefully.

That perception was never perfect. But it was powerful.

The Moral Memory We Have Lost

Today, American politics often frames foreign policy through two competing impulses: triumphalism and withdrawal.

One camp speaks the language of dominance: asserting that American greatness lies in overwhelming strength and national primacy. Another argues that the United States has sacrificed too much abroad and must turn inward, focusing exclusively on domestic renewal.

Both positions, in different ways, risk losing sight of the deeper question: What kind of country are we trying to be?

Subscribe now

The moral memory of the United States, the sense that it is a flawed but striving force for good, has eroded. Abroad, many view American actions through suspicion rather than hope. At home, citizens increasingly doubt the country’s moral coherence altogether.

This erosion cannot be solved by louder declarations of greatness. Greatness proclaimed without goodness becomes hollow, even threatening. This is not simply a crisis of perception abroad; it is also a crisis of narrative at home, where Americans increasingly debate power without contemplating purpose.

And yet, the answer is not isolationism disguised as humility.

Pulling the Log from Our Own Eye

There is a powerful biblical metaphor that resonates here: before pointing out the splinter in another’s eye, one must remove the log from one’s own. The lesson is often interpreted as an argument against moral judgment: that we must perfect ourselves before engaging others.

But that belief misses something essential. The teaching is not a command to withdraw from moral responsibility; it is a call for humility and self-examination.

America must indeed confront its own contradictions. The distance between its ideals and realities, on race, inequality, political division, and institutional trust, undermines its credibility. A nation that ignores its internal flaws while preaching virtue abroad risks appearing hypocritical.

Yet, self-reflection does not require abandonment of responsibility beyond one’s borders. Moral maturity involves holding both truths simultaneously: acknowledging imperfection while striving toward better action.

The same moral tradition that urges self-examination also tells the story of the shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine sheep to search for the one that is lost. The message is not that internal duties disappear, but that moral obligation often extends beyond comfort and proximity.

Presence Without Negativity

What does it mean for a country’s presence in the world to be good?

It does not necessarily mean constant intervention. Nor does it require missionary zeal or ideological crusades. Goodness is less about scale than intention.

A good presence seeks to stabilize rather than destabilize. It listens as well as leads. It recognizes that strength confers responsibility, not entitlement. In moments like the U.S. response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami or the Ebola crisis in West Africa, American logistical capacity projected strength without domination — assistance that stabilized without demanding submission

Perhaps most importantly, goodness rejects the idea that power should be exercised primarily to harm or humiliate others. Even strategic competition need not be cruel.

When the United States is perceived as intentionally negative, as seeking dominance for its own sake, or exploiting crises without regard for consequences, it undermines the very foundations of its influence. Conversely, when its actions align with widely shared moral intuitions, it generates a form of power that cannot be coerced: trust.

Trust is fragile: slow to build, and easy to lose. But it is the currency of lasting leadership.

The Danger of Redefining Success

Modern politics often equates success with measurable outputs: economic growth, military spending, geopolitical advantage. These metrics matter, but they are incomplete.

After 9/11, the power of America’s alliances showed up in a way no index can measure. NATO allies like Denmark didn’t respond after months of bargaining or performative debate; they moved with a kind of reflex. That reflex wasn’t naïveté. It was camaraderie built over years of shared risk and shared commitments. It was also moral clarity: terrorism was not merely an “attack on interests,” but an assault on the Western way of life, and the basic idea that civilians ought not serve as collateral in conflicts of politics, ideologies, or cultures. And underneath it all was a simple recognition that stability is mutual: when the United States is struck, the shockwaves don’t stop at its borders. In moments like that, you see what goodness buys: not applause but trust so deep that others show up at the drop of a hat, because they believe they are defending something shared, not just indulging America’s ambition.

What is often forgotten is that the solidarity on display after 9/11 was not free. NATO allies did not simply issue statements of sympathy; they sent troops into Afghanistan, accepted casualties, and carried political burdens at home that were far from universally popular. Danish forces fought and died alongside American troops. Canadian soldiers endured one of their most costly combat deployments since Korea. Smaller allies contributed not because the outcome was guaranteed or the mission easy, but because decades of shared experience had created a reservoir of trust deep enough to withstand sacrifice. They did not hesitate because they knew goodness was on the line, and that to defend it, America would be leading from the front. Today, as the United States debates the costs of sustaining alliances and commitments abroad, it is worth remembering that others once accepted significant risk without blinking: not out of obligation alone, but because they believed American leadership reflected a moral purpose worth supporting.

The question is not whether debate is healthy… it always is. But whether a nation that once inspired costly loyalty can sustain that reservoir of trust if it begins to treat commitments as optional rather than mutual.

A country obsessed with ranking itself above others may come to see the rest of the world not as a community of shared humanity but as obstacles to overcome.

But what if greatness were redefined as goodness?

What if national success meant being trusted rather than feared? Being reliable rather than unpredictable? Being principled even when expedience beckons?

These are not soft ideals. They require discipline. They demand restraint in moments when aggression might feel satisfying. They require consistency between words and actions.

And they may ultimately prove more sustainable than dominance alone.

Goodness Begins at Home — But Does Not End There

It is true that America must focus on renewing itself. A divided society cannot convincingly offer moral leadership. Economic insecurity, political polarization, and declining institutional trust weaken the nation’s ability to act with clarity abroad.

Yet goodness is not a finite resource that must be hoarded domestically. The idea that caring for others necessarily detracts from caring for oneself reflects a scarcity mindset.

Historically, some of America’s greatest moral achievements have emerged precisely when domestic renewal and outward engagement reinforced one another. The postwar order was not simply charity; it was an expression of values shaped by the lessons of global catastrophe.

Similarly, today’s challenges, from authoritarianism to technological disruption, require not only strategic calculation but moral imagination.

Remembering Why It Mattered

Watching the liberation footage, I realized that the cheering crowds were responding not to a slogan but to a perception. They believed that the Americans arriving were not simply another army seeking advantage.

They believed they were witnessing something closer to justice.

Whether that belief was fully deserved is less important than the fact that it existed, and that it inspired hope.

Hope is not generated by claims of greatness. It is generated by acts of goodness.

Becoming Good Again

To say “Let’s be good again” is not nostalgia. It is aspiration. It acknowledges that America has always been imperfect… and often painfully so… but insists that striving toward moral purpose remains possible.

Being good does not mean abandoning strength. It means guiding strength with conscience.

It means recognizing that national purpose is not fulfilled by leaving the world behind, nor by dominating it, but by contributing to conditions in which others can flourish alongside us.

Perhaps the question facing the United States is not whether it can reclaim greatness. Perhaps the deeper question is whether it can reclaim the desire to be good. Not for applause, not for status, but because goodness is the only foundation upon which lasting legitimacy rests.

And perhaps that is why those liberation images still move us today.

They remind us of a time when people did not cheer because America was number one.

They cheered because, in that moment, America seemed to be on the side of what was right.

Jon Gunhold

Max: In this episode, I sit down with my former RA, and Podcast Host Dylan Morse, to talk about politics, podcasting, and life during and beyond college.

We discuss how political interests develop, the role podcasts play in shaping conversations today, and how personal experiences influence the way we see the world. From campus life to broader political discussions, this episode blends serious topics with personal reflection and a few laughs along the way.

If you enjoyed this conversation, make sure to like the video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications so you never miss a new episode.

Follow the podcast for updates: Instagram: @thestateofpodcast

Thanks for listening!