One of the bills Governor Scott vetoed was H.196 an act relating to paid family leave. The bill was designed to: enable Vermont workers to take up to 12 weeks of paid parental and family leave, with a cap on six weeks of family leave per year. Supporters of the bill say that paid family leave will reduce stress for families and attract young people to Vermont who want to start families.

Research recently completed at Florida Atlantic University and Cleveland State University quantifies what had been suspected for years, namely that families without paid sick leave or family leave time are more likely to have incomes below the poverty line, experience food insecurity and require expensive state funded welfare services.

The studies published in two academic, peer-reviewed journals, Social Work in Health Care and the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, utilized data collected from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey to assess the effect of no paid sick leave on two key indicators of poverty, income and the need to utilize welfare services.[…] The authors argue that the main reason for these correlations are the higher cost of medical expenses, lack of preventive care and missed wages incurred by individuals and families who do not have paid sick leave benefits.

As LeaAnne DeRigne, Ph.D., associate professor of FAU’s Phyllis and Harvey Sandler School of Social Work, simply puts it, the study shows : “Paid sick leave benefits serve as a structural mechanism for preventing working families from becoming the working poor. Given the public investments made in welfare, food stamps and other social services, mandating paid sick leave is a clear policy lever for reducing the need for these services among millions of individuals nationally.”

If Vermont House bill H. 196 had not been vetoed and had instead become law, it would according to reporting in vtdigger.com have been paid for with a 0.136 percent employee payroll tax covering parental and family leave insurance. This would have provided workers taking this benefit to receive 70 percent of their income during the leave period.

Remarking on his veto of this bill Governor Scott said “While the goals of this legislation are admirable,” the governor said in a statement accompanying his veto, “it simply is not responsible to impose a new $16.3 million payroll tax on Vermonters.”

So Governor Scott, help us voters understand why exactly is it “simply responsible” to veto rather than sign H. 196 – a bill that clearly supports working families. Because I found that even the conservative Koch bros.-funded American Enterprise Institute concluded that financing such a plan through a payroll tax was a sensible approach.The group  admits it is not a “terrible” additional burden to pay for implementing family leave. And that seems almost an endorsement considering it’s from Koch Bros. funded organization.

So since he claims the goals of family leave bills are “admirable” yet still kills the bill, my question for Phil Scott would be: what shred of evidence – a study to cite, perhaps, that shows a small payroll tax increase could possibly do as much damage to Vermont working people as the lack  family leave benefits now does?

Remember: Affordable for whom?