Welcome to the Vermont public 2024 general election debates.

I'm Mikayla LeFrak, the host of Vermont Edition.

Today is the second in our series of debates and candidate interviews ahead of the November 5th general elections.

We're joined today by the candidates for Lieutenant Governor of Vermont live today in the Vermont Public studio in Colchester.

We have David Zuckerman, a progressive Democrat.

He is the current lieutenant governor and an organic farmer.

He previously served seven terms in the Vermont House of Representatives, two terms in the state Senate, and two previous terms as lieutenant governor.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Our other candidate today is John.

Excuse me, Republican John Rodgers of West Glover.

He's a former member of both the Vermont House of Representatives and Vermont Senate.

He runs a stone working and excavation business and a hemp and cannabis farm.

John, welcome.

Thank you.

All right.

This year, Vermont public has adopted the citizens Agenda approach to election coverage.

More than 620 Vermonters have submitted questions for candidates and thoughts on the issues they care most about.

You'll hear some of those throughout today's debate.

To submit your own question for one of our other upcoming debates or candidate interviews, email us at vote at Vermont public.org.

Here is the format we'll use today which the candidates have agreed to.

In the first segment, I'll ask common questions to both candidates from our Citizens Agenda and the Vermont Public Newsroom.

They'll each have one minute to answer.

I'll also ask short follow up questions in the second segment.

The candidates will ask each other questions.

They'll have 30s to ask a question and one minute to answer.

They'll also have time to ask follow ups if they'd like.

In the third segment will return to questions from our citizens agenda in the newsroom.

Candidates again will have one minute to respond there.

We'll follow that with a lightning round of questions where candidates have 10s to respond.

We'll conclude with one minute closing statements from each candidate.

Vermont public used an online name generator to decide who will go first, and John Rodgers, who will begin a reminder in this first section to please limit your initial response to one minute.

And we're going to start with affordability and cost of living.

The high cost of utilities, housing, groceries and other goods is a top concern for many Vermonters.

From the oldest down to the youngest, third graders at Robinson Elementary School in Stark's Borough submitted questions to us for this debate, including this one.

Why does my mom work so hard and long to pay our bills?

Can you help?

How would you use your position as lieutenant governor to help Vermont families like this child's John Rodgers?

Yeah, absolutely.

I'm one of the guys that works.

My whole family, actually 6 or 7 days a week, most of the time to to make ends meet.

and the legislature has not, been doing its work to keep Vermont affordable.

We've done over 38 studies of education, financing.

We're on the 39th one right now.

And yet they've implemented none of those suggestions.

And it's time to go back through those studies and implement them.

property taxes is the number one issue I hear about on the campaign trail.

But they all also have been passing regressive energy policy that is affecting poor and middle class people more than anyone else.

And much of that money is going straight to millionaires in the development community.

So I really want to focus on renewable energy that is ethically sourced from places that don't use child and slave labor, and make sure that it's actually helping all Vermonters, not just the folks that can afford to have the solar panels on their house.

And can you breath a couple of types of taxes?

I want to ask you about one other time in particular.

We got a question from listener named Tim in Northfield who writes a major area about which I have not heard is the need to reduce the wealth gap that's so evident in Vermont.

Increasing taxes on wealthy people and corporations in Vermont is a more equitable way to put more of the burden on people who can afford to pay more.

Now, there was a proposal in the legislature to raise taxes on Vermonters who earn more than $500,000 a year.

it did not become law.

But I am curious if you would support another proposal like that one to raise taxes on the wealthiest Vermonters.

If lawmakers did introduce one.

Yeah.

I think there's a lot of things we need to look at.

Taxes need to be fair and equitable, and there's a lot of folks that are also high or making unearned income and getting rebates on their property taxes, that sort of thing shouldn't happen.

What's happening with the existing tax policy is more and more of the burden seems to be getting pushed on the people that aren't getting refunds, the people in the middle, the working class.

And that's the people that I want to stand up for.

So would you support a wealth tax?

I would have to look at what you mean by wealth tax.

But yes, there are various things, that wealthy people and people who have large investments are not paying their fair share on.

And I am certainly interested in everyone paying their fair share.

Thank you.

And I'll repeat the question for you, Lieutenant governor.

this third grader at Robinson Elementary School in Starks borough asks, why does my mom work so hard and long to pay our bills?

Can you help?

Well, it is a very serious question, and it's true of working class folks and a lot of middle class folks as both Vermont policy, but also the national and international realities have come to play.

Housing affordability is going up everywhere in the country.

There's a shortage of housing.

Ever since 2008, I did support, and I'll be very clear about my position on taxes, that 3%, marginal income tax on folks earning over $500,000 a year to invest $70 million a year in affordable housing for the next ten years.

The House passed it.

The governor and the Senate, didn't stand for that, but I'll continue to advocate for that because we will not make housing affordable until we invest in that affordability.

Secondly, I've put out a number of proposals on property taxes.

for years to shift the income sensitivity so that it's even across the board right now, wealthier people pay a lower percentage of their income towards our education fund than working class people.

This would actually save Vermonters in that working middle class 30 to $40 million a year.

I've also proposed with the governor, I see my time.

That is time.

And I do have a follow up question for you there, too.

So in your your last lieutenant governor debate with Vtdigger, you said that the Democratic supermajority in the legislature had been implemented as much of the progressive agenda as you would have liked to see.

You noted that the legislature didn't pass a marginal income tax to invest in affordable housing.

they haven't read and I'm quoting here, the minimum wage the way that I would have liked over time.

But I'm curious what what would you say to Vermonters who are concerned that those types of progressive policy prescriptions are going to be too expensive for the state and end up raising taxes for for people who can't afford it?

Well, I mean, we've seen, thankfully, wages for working people going up, in the last couple of years, well beyond what the minimum wage was.

So, you know, that's that's the economy as it is, raising taxes on folks incomes over $500,000 is not going to change the economic, day to day costs for everyday Vermonters.

That's not going to change the price of their food.

That's not going to change, the price of, their fuel.

but what it will do is inject money in to bring down the cost of housing by subsidizing housing.

Without that, the basic costs of housing are too high.

The materials and the and the construction costs.

Well, we will get to housing, in more detail in just a moment.

But first, let's turn to one of the topics that we heard the most about in our citizens agenda, energy and climate.

Now, greenhouse gas emissions are the leading cause of global warming.

And last year, Vermont lawmakers tasked utility regulators with designing a clean heat standard and, bear with me for a moment.

I'll explain this because it's one of those complicated, policies to explain.

So the goal of this is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heating buildings.

Fossil fuel dealers would be required to reduce their emissions through clean heat credits, which can be created through things like switching a customer to more renewable energy sources.

But last week, the utility regulators came back and said a clean heat standard is not the right policy for Vermont.

They think it'll be too costly for a small state like Vermont to run.

And there's also a concern that any increase in costs will be passed down by the fuel dealers to consumers.

Do you, Lieutenant governor, we'll start with you.

Do you support a clean heat standard for Vermont?

Well, clearly, the reason for asking them to figure that out was to see what the consequence would be.

And at that scale, and with their assumptions, that is too high a cost to bear for everyday Vermonters with the way that shift would happen.

On the other hand, there are those that say, then let's do nothing, or they don't come up with another idea.

The reality is, we know between our own last two years of intense flooding, we know with the devastating floods in the southeast that already happened a week ago, and now this next incredibly powerful hurricane coming, that we all have to do our part.

The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action.

So I would like to see us again move towards subsidizing working class people's ability to transition their heating sources to more cost effective long term heating sources that produce fewer emissions.

That may be a combination of some, sadly, taxes on fuel, but we have to look at other sources that are more progressive.

So that doesn't primarily hit working class people as it looks like the current plan would have done.

So your opponent in the past has accused Vermont Democrats of being unduly influenced by environmental special interest groups.

And it is true that the party has received donations from groups like the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Vermont Renewable Energy PAC and their funders include many solar energy companies.

Can you assure Vermonters that they are?

Legislators are really crafting legislation that is not influenced by these private companies who who contribute to Democratic campaigns?

Well, a couple things.

I've also had that support.

So I'll be fully transparent.

those folks support me because I've been a longtime climate activist champion.

The reality is the impacts on the climate on Vermonters, whether you're in Barre or Ludlow or Lyndonville, is very clear.

And so taking action to address climate change is not about the donations we get, but it's about the philosophy and the science behind the reality we're facing today.

Now, those folks support me because I'm active on those issues and think we need to address them.

Thank you.

And I'll repeat the question.

The initial question for you, John Rodgers, do you support a clean heat standard for Vermont?

I do not support a clean heat standard, and I knew it was going to be too expensive.

even before they implemented it.

The problem with my opponent in the supermajority is they believe they can spend Vermonters money better than they can, and I don't I don't subscribe to that.

I believe my opponent and the house supported.

I believe you initially supported the House version, which had no check back.

And so if the Senate wouldn't have pushed back and said we need a check back, this would have gone into law and Vermonters wouldn't have been able to afford it.

And I will go back to the reality that is, the Public Service Department has done a study and determined that people like my opponent, who have solar panels on their roof are being subsidized by poor and middle class Vermonters that don't have solar panels on their roof.

The, the legislation has been regressive in that needs to change.

It needs to be at market rate.

Yeah.

So you are outspoken in to not only the opposition you hold to the clean heat standard, but also other ways that the Democratic legislature has pursued environmental conservation.

in an op ed for the Vermont Chronicle.

You wrote on my farm, I spend the extra money for a plant based, fully biodegradable and certified organic Ro crop cover because I believe in always doing what is right for the earth, even if it costs me a bit more.

So I wonder if you can assure Vermonters that your own, like how how you can assure Vermonters that your climate efforts would be less expensive when the methods that you tout on your own farm are, in fact, more expensive for a family like yours.

Well, and I would just say my opponent still uses plastic and has put thousands of pounds of plastic into the landfill.

And I don't think that's okay.

so I do spend the extra on that plastic, that we do a lot of things on the farm that are great for the environment.

And one of the things that bothers me as a landowner and a person who's very careful about how I manage my farm, we spend thousands of dollars a year on really complex seed blends for cover crops that benefit wildlife, birds, pollinators, beneficial insects and store carbon.

But we get nothing back for that.

We're doing the right thing for climate change, and that's what we have to be careful of, is that we're not destroying farms and cutting down forests to put up solar panels built in China, and pretending that that is going to save us.

Thank you.

And we received many messages ahead of today's debate about the lack of affordable housing in the state.

How can the state and municipalities attract developers to take on new building projects in the face of high construction costs, land use regulations and potential opposition from locals who don't want to see big developments change their town?

John Rodgers will start with you this time.

Yeah.

it's a serious issue.

I think we took a step backwards with the new act 250 bill that the legislature just passed, making it harder to develop in rural areas and more expensive to develop in rural areas.

the the cost of labor and materials is very high.

But if we want to make affordable housing, I think the first thing we have to look at is the cost of keeping and maintaining that house.

After you've built it.

I've talked with people who don't have mortgages anymore, and they're telling me between their property taxes, their energy bills, and the other cost of having a house, they don't know if they can afford to live here.

So we have to focus on everything from the cost of building the building.

But also can people working Vermonters afford to pay the ongoing cost once they get into a building?

Governor Scott has often brought up the regulatory burden that inhibits the building of new homes.

Do you agree with Governor Scott?

And if so, are there specific regulations that you do suggest cutting?

Well, absolutely.

And it's not so much cutting the regulation as it is making.

Act 250. predictable and affordable.

if it's a good project, act 250 needs the ability to get that permitted and moving forward in a reasonable amount of time, say 2 or 3 months.

Some of these projects are held up for years.

Some people walk away from good housing projects because they are tied up in act 250 for so long.

And so this is costing us good development, good housing projects.

so it's not as much regulation as it is process.

Thank you.

And, Lieutenant governor, how can the state and municipalities attract developers?

Well, I would firmly disagree with my opponent on his, summary of act 250 change because frankly, in I think it's about 70 communities in the state.

If that bill worked to reduce those permitting hurdles for those larger, developments, they also bumped the number so that, more development could happen without it triggering act 250 and even in rural areas.

I think that's been mischaracterized.

folks can build one, two, five, eight houses, without going through act 250.

So nothing was made harder there.

The only issue that he can point to on that is the road rule to say, you know, you have to if it's longer than 800ft road to build a house, then you trigger act 252 because it goes into more sensitive areas.

so folks can also build a mount system right by the edge of the road, probably for less money than they can build an 800ft road.

so between reducing permitting in town and village centers.

I would also be happy to look at the idea of a special permit advisor on act 250.

For really large developers, I know some of them say, look, will pay extra so that there could be a specialist or two to help these go through the process in a more, measured but predictable manner.

So there's concrete things we can do.

Well, speaking of concrete projects, I saw that about a month ago.

A long planned development in your hometown of Heinz Burg, received its act 250 permits, and you posted about it on Instagram, and you wrote projects like this one do take a long time to develop.

It's been in the works for over ten years.

However, I do think they're worthwhile investments that will help revitalize our villages and strengthen our communities.

Hopefully this can be a model for future development.

but ten years is a long time.

How how do you speed up that type of timeline?

Well, I just alluded to that.

If we had, both, a permit specialist at the at 250 review level, that was particularly for these, you know, 203 hundred unit circumstances so that they wouldn't take as long to get through.

that and also under the current law, at least, this would be in that town and village area where you'd have the water and sewer systems to, address some of those issues that are very important to look at.

You know, folks just say, well, get rid of the permitting or get rid of the hurdles.

Those hurdles are put in place when act 250 was created, because there's going to be widespread development up and down the hills of Vermont.

Folks have to remember, without that, Vermont would not be the state it is today.

So delicate change.

But also, you know, as many want to make Vermont the way it was.

That's part of it.

Well, from housing, let us move on to the struggles that people who are experiencing homelessness, have in Vermont today.

Vermont's homeless population has tripled since the pandemic, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and without additional federal funding for shelters.

How should the state keep people housed this winter?

Lieutenant governor?

Well, you know, this is an emergency.

one of the things the pandemic did was it raised the awareness level well beyond the one day a year when we had a press conference to say this, many people are houseless, which we did every spring, and it was around 1000 1200 people.

Now we're at 3500 or so.

And with the pandemic, I think more for selfish reasons, to try to reduce the spread of Covid.

We said, let's house everybody, so we all get less chance of getting sick.

But it also made us more aware of how many people have been living outside of homes, in cars and tents.

Now we have the moral decision to we as a civilized society say, too bad you've got kids, too bad you've got a permanent health situation.

Too bad 80 days is the limit.

I don't think that's containable.

We need to put money forward.

And that's again back to that 3% marginal tax on 500,000 or more.

That 70 million was well designed over the next ten years, both to address the short term housing scenario so we could afford to keep folks housed while investing in those developments, not of which all of them are ready right now for 70 million.

So we could transition and make sure we had more affordable housing for people.

Right.

And I'm curious about that, that short term plan.

I would like to hear more because in a recent email, to your supporters, you called on Governor Scott to take some immediate executive actions to open up state land and buildings.

You called it him to reinstate the motel voucher program to house all who need it until the crisis is resolved.

And I just wonder how you would pay for something like that and what exactly it means for the crisis to be resolved.

Well, two things.

One, we actually have a tremendous amount of extra money in the Treasury right now.

We still have all that Covid money, and it's a lot of it's earmarked to be spent.

But we could dip into that until then, either the governor or the legislature, preferably collaboratively, would move such a bill.

And we could either replenish those coffers, that we borrow from, which would be within our economic resources, not borrow from the banks and so forth in order to house people through this.

It will cost us more in health costs.

When people are out living in tents and in parks and otherwise in the emergency room and in reduced education circumstances for our kids.

Okay, it's one cost to save another.

Thank you.

And John Rodgers, same question to you.

Without additional federal funding for the shelters.

How can and should the state House people as soon as this winter?

Yeah, this on this issue, we, agree on a large part of it.

We can't be leaving families out in the cold.

And the cost drivers go beyond what my opponent talked about.

Even when I talked to the business people in the downtown that are, struggling with retail theft all the time.

And we know that it's driven by people that are in a bad place in their life.

And that's not an excuse for them, and they need to be held accountable.

but we really need to start working on long term solutions and I think Burlington gets unfairly, an unfair, heavy burden because they have more services.

And so I think more of the homeless population goes downtown Burlington.

and so we need to make sure that if there, if the population is going to be there, that the services are adequately funded.

But we really just like every other service, like health care service.

I think we need to be more cognizant of having those services in various places around the state so the burden isn't dumped all on one place.

Well, again, with the short term solutions here, I mean, there's many more families now than there were three months ago who are experiencing homelessness because the state has has cut down on the motel voucher program to save costs.

Do you think that the governor and the legislature should find a way to to reinstate the motel voucher program?

I think we're likely I think we're likely going to have to if we can't come up with any other, viable alternatives.

But I'll tell you, on the campaign trail, I talked to one guy who serves foreclosure.

And one of the things that I'm worried about with the rising rates of property taxes and electric bills and everything else, he says he's serving more foreclosures than ever before.

And when he goes into those homes, he he says, you can see that these families were in crisis.

And so I'm worried about more families getting put out on the street.

If the cost of living continues to rise in the state.

Thank you.

Our last question in this segment is about health care.

We received this question from Beth, who is a nurse in the Brattleboro area, and she wrote in to say that she would really like to see Vermonters gain universal access to primary care.

More broadly, do you think Vermont should continue to pursue universal health care coverage, and if so, how?

John Rodgers I do not.

I don't think Vermont can afford to go it on its own.

but I recently read a study that took a group of European countries with the same population as the United States, and they have universal health care coverage.

And currently in the United States, we're covering more money than we should be.

to cover the whole population.

And we're only covering 30%.

So our federal government is really failing us.

And that is one thing I would do.

as lieutenant governor, is make sure that our federal delegation is working towards it and hope I know that the federal government seems completely dysfunctional, but it is really there responsibility with the high cost of living here in Vermont.

I don't see how there's any way for us to, take on a single payer on our own.

So just to be clear, this is a situation the high cost of health care in which you think that the federal government needs to to lead the way in reducing the cost.

Absolutely.

This absolutely.

This study said that we're already spending more than enough money based on European models to cover every man, woman and child in the country.

And we need to get rid of waste and fraud.

We need to make sure, that insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies aren't gouging us.

Why do we pay three times more for the same drug as a person in Canada?

so there's a lot of things that the federal government has been negligent in not taking care of that could help us, a long ways to taking care of health care in Vermont.

Thank you.

And the same question to you, lieutenant governor.

Well, sure.

I'm glad my opponent has finally come to this conclusion.

Our federal delegation and Bernie have probably led the way more than anybody, on both reducing prescription drug prices and pushing for universal health care with exactly those statistics that have which have been out there for dozens and dozens of years.

but I do support universal health care in Vermont.

it's not inexpensive.

But of course, our current system is way too expensive.

The costs are going up every year.

We continue to have reports showing double digit increases in the percentages, that are that we're paying for insurance and for coverage.

we know with Bernie's work and the FCC's, there's been a big investment in primary care around the state, and that's good.

We need to continue to do that.

we know that about 20 to 30% of our dollars go towards insurance overhead and paperwork and paper, figuring out who's paying what.

Whereas a universal system would save that.

The reason to be more expensive in Vermont than some other places is because we're also an aging state, so we have to take that into effect.

But yes, I support a universal system have for a very long time.

So yes, it would it would be a more expensive system, but it could also, be a difficult transition, and potentially disrupt care.

That is a concern that some folks have, because this would lead to a complete overhaul of the state's medical system.

do you have any concerns about, disruption in care or the, the, the transition they move into a different system would take to to transition would take incredible planning and time to do it properly.

There's no doubt.

just as my opponent has said, you know, we should just revamp the whole education system.

Well, you can't do that overnight either.

These things take time.

we would need to bring strong experts in on hospital management, on medical care, on billing and everything else.

to make sure we could do it in an effective and non-disruptive way.

As a small business owner, I can tell you I lose people after 5 or 6 years as they get into their late 20s and early 30s.

When they start, think about having children.

Well, I don't offer health insurance as a small business.

If all if everyone had insurance, that would actually help.

A lot of small businesses retain their employees as well.

Well, that concludes the first segment of this debate.

When we come back, I'm going to get out of the way and the candidates will have an opportunity to ask each other some questions.

This is Vermont public's general election debate for Vermont's lieutenant governor.

I'm MikaelaLeFrak.

Stay with us.

This is Vermont Public's general election debate for Vermont lieutenant governor.

I'm Mikaela LeFrak in the Vermont public studio in Colchester.

Joining us today are Republican John Rodgers of West Glover and progressive Democrat David Zuckerman of Haines Burg.

The candidates will now have an opportunity to ask each other some questions.

The questions should not be longer than 30s, and the responses are limited to 60s and a reminder.

You can ask a brief follow up question if you'd like.

And we will begin with Lieutenant Governor.

Well thank you.

John, we've watched countless extreme weather events, both here in Vermont and around the country, powered by climate change.

You've talked a lot about what you personally do on your farm to fight climate change.

And I appreciate that and do the same on my farm.

But I but I want to know, given the enormity of the problem we face.

Do you agree as I do, that as a state, we should be doing everything we can to fight climate change and reduce our impact without crushing working people with the cost.

I think we should do everything that we can that Vermonters can afford.

what I don't support is your policies in the supermajorities policies that support child and slave labor in the Congo, where the majority 70% of the cobalt in the batteries that we use for electric vehicles and electric batteries is coming from child and slave labor, where they're destroying an environment and a people.

And so we can't use those batteries and pretend we're doing something good for the planet.

So there have to be caveats.

We cannot support solar panels that are being built in China using coal power.

If the labor and environmental standards are not up to par, there's a way to address climate change and renewable energy that is not doing destruction.

On the other side of the planet.

And, we can't destroy people in an environment and pretend that we're doing something good for the planet.

Well, you don't support wind and solar here.

You don't support lithium.

That's not true, apparently.

also, it was okay to take coal from Native American lands and and poison people there.

What specific proposals besides what we can't do?

Do you offer to actually tackle the climate crisis so that we can actually reduce the impacts of these major storms?

Well, first off, I wish you would quit with your lies.

it is really quite disturbing.

I don't think I ever supported coal on industrial energy comes from.

And I never said that I didn't support renewable energy or solar energy.

I do not support blowing the tops off Vermont mountains and supporting multinational corporations who are in it for the benefit of their millionaire stockholders like you do.

I don't support that kind of development in Vermont.

Renewable energy needs to be responsible and ethically sourced.

Thank you.

John Rodgers, it's your turn to ask a question.

recently I've had a lot of friends sending me, emails with some of my opponents.

fundraising emails.

And it's very disturbing because there's a lot of stuff in there that's completely untrue.

So I'm wondering, do you really think I'm a toxic mail?

I don't believe I said specifically, you're a toxic mail, but you do as you have another debate.

You've actually kept your cool much better in this debate.

You've been very aggressive in the debates.

I've heard from many people in the state House, about when you were at the state House for 16 years, the way you treated other people.

and so, the angry energy is appropriate and that, people are frustrated out there.

but we also have to come up with solutions.

And I think we've even heard today you're talking more about, the things you don't support or attacking me or others as opposed to presenting solutions.

And part of, toxicity is just pointing fingers as opposed to presenting reasonable ideas and thoughts and solutions, which is, I think, more the Vermont way that I've come to know in Vermont.

I've come to know it in the legislature.

I've come to know it.

And on the streets and talking to people at the farmers market that people want to see folks collaborate and work together and not keep pointing fingers.

I would say you're not living up to that standard.

I mean, I'd be happy to show Mikayla your last, email.

And it really is disturbing.

And, I actually had a couple of rough days, after seeing them because I thought for a long time I considered David a friend, even though we differed on policy stuff.

But a friend would never tell such lies and such toxic stuff as you've been putting out in your emails.

So I don't really think you get the the Vermont that I grew up in where people did trust each other and treat each other with respect.

Is that a question?

I didn't hear a question, but more a comment, but I guess I'll do my best to work with it.

you know, at the beginning of this campaign, I was more than happy to be fully respectful.

But if folks want to go back and listen to the other debates that we've had, I think it's pretty clear where the where the slings and punches started.

You know, you chose to be run as a Republican in this day and age under Trump.

sort of ruling of the party.

that's a choice you made.

I believe people are, born, whoever they are, wherever they are.

I don't point fingers about that, as you did plenty of times throughout this debate and this or this campaign.

in the end, you treat people based on who they are and how they present themselves.

You made a choice.

I was calling you out on that choice.

Lieutenant governor, it's your turn to ask a question.

excuse me.

We all know that the Electoral College results will decide who wins the presidency.

But with January 6th and the rhetoric from Trump, I would argue that we have to have the biggest margin of victory in the popular vote.

To really say enough is enough to end, for instance, that toxic masculinity, this kind of bombastic lying to froth people up is what will destroy our democracy.

You have said you are not voting for Trump, but you are equivocating as to what you will do.

Who are you supporting for president?

I don't think that helps anybody in Vermont pay their property taxes.

And I've said, and you keep trying to tie me to Trump, and I've said, I'm not supporting him.

And I've also said out loud that I am also seriously concerned with some of Kamala's policies.

And I have not decided who I'm voting for.

But for you to continue to try to tie me to Trump is dishonest, and you've done that throughout the campaign.

I actually said, you said you're not voting for Trump.

So I didn't tell you to Trump just then.

I just said, you're not doing that, but you're equivocating.

And my question was about the national vote totals and how important it is to have a serious margin.

So that Trump can't manipulate the public with his words with any kind of, respectable situation.

That's why, among others, I'm voting for Kamala Harris.

too.

I agree with her on everything.

No, and in Vermont, you've said, well, it doesn't really matter what we do.

I'm saying it does.

Who are you voting for?

Why can't you make that clear?

I'm saying that I haven't decided who I'm voting for.

And I'm not sure why you can't accept that.

And I am still considering every option.

But in the past, on many.

If I won't vote for the lesser of two evils, if I think neither is qualified, or I will vote for someone else.

Thank you.

John Rodgers.

Can I ask your final question?

What breed of dairy cow makes the best chocolate milk?

well, the the jerseys in the guernseys have more fat in their milk than the Holsteins, so I'd go for one of those.

But, obviously you've got to have good chocolate mixed in there to make it as good as it can be.

Got to have Jersey.

It's all about the milk solids, the protein and the butterfat.

response.

No.

You know, I didn't grow up on a dairy, but I think I reasonably answered the question with respect to some of the differences in them.

But, it's a great question.

I think we all can enjoy chocolate milk, maple cream cheese and, cider donuts.

So I think we can probably all agree on that.

Yes, my daughter will appreciate this turn of events in this debate.

All right.

This concludes the second segment of our program.

When we come back, the candidates are going to answer more questions from our citizens agenda and from the Vermont Public Newsroom.

This is Vermont public's general election debate for Vermont's lieutenant governor.

I'm Mikaela LeFrak.

Stay with us.

Welcome back.

This is the general election debate for Vermont lieutenant governor.

I'm Mikaela LeFrak.

Joining us is Vermont public in Vermont public Colchester studio art Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman of Gainsbourg, a progressive Democrat, and John Rodgers of West Glover, a Republican, will now return to questions from our citizens agenda and the newsroom.

And thank you to everyone who submitted questions or noted particular issues that you want these candidates to address.

Just a reminder, candidates, please limit your answers to one minute here.

We're going to start the segment with education.

The education funding system is, as we know, very complicated, as evidenced during the last legislative session when lawmakers tried to find a way to limit property tax increases despite rising education costs.

What would you point to as the number one reason that education costs have gone up?

And how could that piece of the equation be addressed?

John Rodgers, we'll start with you this time.

Sure.

number one, the legislature has authorized 38 studies and not done one single thing that came back to them in those studies.

We've spent millions of taxpayer dollars.

one of the things that's been talked about over and over is reducing administration.

That's one of the first places I would look.

There are many excuse me.

There are many cities and states with a larger population than Vermont that have one supervisory union.

we, as I've stated before, we need to look at the system from top to bottom and find savings wherever we can.

We want to give our students the best education that we can, but it has to be an education that Vermonters can afford to pay for.

And right now, the failures of my opponent and the supermajority in implementing any of those changes is has resulted in an education system that Vermonters can no longer afford.

And one quick follow up for you here.

So earlier this year, as we know, many districts voted down local school budgets, citing these property tax increases.

And if those budgets were ultimately not able to pass, schools would have had to operate on 87% of their prior year's budget.

Did you support these local efforts to decrease school budgets?

Well, I don't think it was because they didn't support their students or their schools.

I think it was really a cry out to Montpelier, do something about this.

And so I think when you get put in a position like that, you have to use whatever tools you have.

And I think they used that tool.

And I think, I hope that Montpelier got a strong message that people are dissatisfied with what they have done and want them to get off the diamond and do it.

Make the change.

Thank you.

Lieutenant governor, same question to you.

What would you point to as the number one reason education costs have gone up?

And how do you address that?

Well, I'm going to give you a few of those, but I do want to point out that my opponent was in the legislature for many of those studies, and I don't recall him leading the charge on any of the outcomes of those studies.

So I'm glad he's finally taking that up.

But honestly, the, number of superintendents and the amount we would save from that, although I do support the idea of maybe reducing those numbers is not the major cost driver in the last few years, the major cost driver has been mental health and support services for kids that the administration has shifted on to the education fund, where in other states that's dealt with by the general fund through the Human Services Agency.

So that alone, we're looking at a few hundred million dollars a year, not the 10 to 30 million that the administrative savings that my opponent talked about is apparently the biggest way to save money.

I would also look towards our second homeowners.

We have 58,002nd homes in the state.

It's the second most, proportion anywhere in the country.

We could raise millions of dollars with a surtax on second homes, particularly the high end homes, to reduce property taxes for everyday Vermonters.

We also could look at reducing the bureaucratic overlap between human service and education to save a lot of money.

It's a follow up question to you about the, the local votes around school budgets.

Did you support those efforts or where did you think that those votes were coming from?

Well, I think those votes are coming out of the reality that folks are struggling to pay their taxes.

They do support their schools and their kids, and it is the responsibility of the legislature to make some shifts, along with the lack of proposals from the governor, to really make significant shifts in how our education is paid for, as well as the management.

And I started to talk about that with human services and education.

A governor's been there for eight years.

He works year round, has staff year round, could be looking at the hurdles between education and human services to reduce paperwork and better the outcomes by addressing these kids needs earlier in their life so that they don't manifest in bigger problems.

So there's a number of complex but important ways to address these issues.

And voters are saying you need to do that.

Well, you are running for the lieutenant governorship of Vermont.

So we got to talk about cannabis here.

Should Vermont eliminate its legal limits on the potency of certain marijuana products, also known as THC caps?

Cannabis reform advocates say that nixing THC caps could keep more customers in the state's legal marketplace versus the black market, but some medical leaders have voiced concerns about nixing these caps.

Lieutenant governor, we'll start with you.

Well, a couple things.

One is I do think we should eliminate those, just as I was a 20 year and was the original lead advocate, at least between the two of us, although I'm glad we did see eye to eye.

And I think we worked well together on that legislation to reform our cannabis laws.

The bottom line is these products are out there.

The question is, do you want them regulated and safe?

And in these stores we have to show ID to get in.

Or do you want them to be out there where people are buying them on the street, potentially from someone who's selling other drugs, or nowadays, sadly, potentially when cannabis might even be mixed with some of these other drugs that hook people into our substance use disorder circumstances.

So one, I support raising those caps out of actually safety.

Two, I also think we need to still reform our laws further to allow small farmers that produce cannabis to be able to create either a co-op model where they have members and they can sell directly to those members with lower taxes and lower regulatory hurdles to really help that.

What was an underground economy survive through the regulatory structure that has been set up.

So I think there's a number of reforms to help our small cannabis growers, as well as to make sure the product is safe.

Thank you.

And John Rodgers.

Yeah, absolutely.

It's still the black market is still a huge problem.

And I was the legislator that when, the original bill came out of Senate Judiciary and the smallest grow was a 10,000 square foot, I was the guy that stood up and said, this is ridiculous.

No, Vermonters going to be able to afford this.

And I put in an amendment to allow for 500ft gross, which started the conversation that got it down to where it is.

And I wish they to never even opened up the the tier fives.

But the the CCP has, has scaled that down and we're doing better.

But there is still there are still too many growers.

And the growers, just like any other kind of farmer, are struggling because of the license cost, the cost of doing business and the fact that it's bottlenecked in the retailers.

So even as Citizen John Rodgers, the last four years I've been traveling to Montpelier and advocating for changes and have gotten some pretty substantial changes and would like to be in the building to continue that work.

Thank you.

Let's move on to gun rights and regulations.

More than 50% of Vermonters own a gun, according to an estimate by the Rand Corporation.

Vermont is also an open carry state, and a listener named Kristina wants to know what policies or legislation you would support to protect local school communities from the epidemic of gun violence in the US.

Are there additional policies and legislation that you think Vermont could and should put in place?

And, John Rodgers, we'll start with you.

Yeah, absolutely.

There are policies.

number one, we have to do a better job getting rid of drug dealers and drug traffickers where the majority of the violence, shootouts and illegal guns are coming from.

I did support red flag laws, even though there are some constitutional rights issues.

They are.

one of the things that I advocated for, which, again, it goes to national politics, the, the database for people who are not supposed to have firearms should be publicly searchable.

That way people, if they saw somebody, you know, and they thought they had a firearm, they could actually look at that and call law enforcement and let them know that these people that we're not supposed to have them, had them, because that is one of the problems with a lot of the, drug dealers and drug traffickers.

They're already felons.

They're not supposed to have firearms, but yet they still have illegal firearms.

And just 10s here.

Do you support a assault weapons ban?

I don't think anybody needs automatic weapons.

Thank you.

And lieutenant governor.

Yeah, I was going to start with that.

I don't think folks need the automatic weapons.

and I do think we should look into that, because that is ultimately when you look at most of these, mass shootings, the weapons that are used, the harm that's done, the kids that are killed, the teachers that are killed, and and the way that that rips families and communities apart.

So I think we can still move in that direction and say, we don't need to sell those in Vermont.

I just it's it's ridiculous to me that weapons that are designed for military warfare, are sold out there when folks can still get the weapons they need for hunting or self-protection.

so I have supported, all of the different gun laws that have moved through the state in these last few years to try to move towards, sensible gun policy.

And, yeah, the expansion in that regard would be the AR 15.

And I appreciate the idea around the searchable database.

that's that's a great idea.

Thank you.

Let's talk about the political climate.

In a lot of states, the lieutenant governor is not an elected position.

They run on a ticket with the gubernatorial candidate of the same party.

Do you think that Vermont system of having the governor and the lieutenant governor run separately is better, or does it contribute to some of the divides that we see here in this state?

Lieutenant governor, we'll start with you.

No, I don't think it leads to the divides.

We've had this system for quite a long time.

a lot of folks have said they like voting for me and and Governor Scott, because it divides the power and that roles in those roles.

but ultimately, the role of lieutenant governor is primarily to preside over the Senate and maintain that decorum in the Senate.

And I think I've earned a pretty strong reputation for fairness in running the chamber, making sure the voices are heard and, you know, not all one side before the other side gets to speak and so forth.

And I've helped senators, and especially new senators from across the political spectrum with how to be most effective on the floor, how to get my attention, or why, you know, I didn't call on them at the moment because there was a procedural circumstance.

So, you know, I've reached out to the governor, to meet with him.

I was his call as governor back in 2017 to say, you know, we're going to do our thing.

I think that was probably more Jason Gibson, the governor.

I respect the governor quite a bit, but, I think, the system has worked well.

People have returned to us both there many times, and I hope they certainly return me again as well.

And John Rodgers.

Yeah.

Well, I see the, Lieutenant governor's office as, a great platform.

I like the way that it is separate from the governor's office.

I do have the support of the governor.

I served with him.

Of course, I was a Democrat at that time, and my values haven't changed.

I just lost faith in the party that I lived in in my entire life until now.

but the governor would like a lieutenant governor that he can work with, and that's why he's supporting me and endorsed me.

I want to be a lieutenant governor.

Like I think Vermont's never seen.

I want to bring working Vermonters voices back into the statehouse.

I think they've been lost.

I think the special interest, controls the statehouse.

And legislators talk to each other and lobbyists and don't listen to regular Vermonters.

and that's what I can bring to the building.

Thank you.

Jack in Hyde Park writes that he appreciates Governor Phil Scott's call for more moderates in politics, but he asks, who are they?

What's your relationship to political moderates?

Are you one?

And do you think a moderate viewpoint is important?

John Rodgers.

Absolutely.

That's that's why I'm here, because I am a moderate.

I served for 16 years in the legislature as a Democrat.

I decided to switch to the Republican Party because Governor Scott and the moderate Republican were the only ones standing up for working Vermonters.

I wish I could have run as an independent, but in a statewide race, it's almost impossible.

I've always worked for my constituents.

I'm not a Partizan person, and that is what I offer.

You know, I, I supported marriage equality.

I lost my seat because of it, because I came from a more conservative district than anyone else in the state that supported that bill, but it was the right thing to do.

I have LGBTQ people in my family and in my circle of friends.

Of course, they should be treated just like everybody else.

so I that's one thing I think that sets me apart from my opponent is I have always been a moderate in that building and worked across the aisle.

no matter which party I was part of.

Lieutenant governor.

Well, I'll just say on some of the biggest bills that I helped lead the charge on, they were tri partizan or nonpartisan, whether it was GMOs or cannabis or Lyme disease.

and so I have a long track record of working across many aisles.

as folks know, I run with two party labels, trying to broaden it from a bipolar system, which I think right now is kind of one of the problems.

We, have moved away from thinking in a bipolar way, whether it's gender or race.

And yet we still have this bipolar political system where one side, just as you've seen here, likes to attack the other side more than really talk about the issues.

And so what I've done is try to say, look, the party labels matter less than the policy.

And I have had people across the political spectrum in my office inviting them in to help them navigate the process of the statehouse, how to get their voice heard or their I agree with them on their issues or not.

and you can ask many folks, from, folks who are strong gun rights advocates, they know I'll respect them and talk with them and, and talk to them about how to get their voice heard, even if in some of those instances I don't agree.

so I, I think partizanship is has become a problem nationally.

It's leaking into Vermont.

and that's really unfortunate.

Thank you.

Well, that concludes that section of the debate.

And we do have time for a brief lightning round before the end of the debate and closing statements.

I'll ask the candidates to please keep your answers as short as possible, about 10s or less.

What is the what is one issue in Vermont that doesn't get enough air time?

Lieutenant governor?

I would say actually voting reform and campaign finance, if we changed those things, many of these other issues would be debated more rather than just battled over.

John Rodgers.

Boy, that's a tough one.

I think the two Vermont's I think the fact that there's some people here doing really good, and there's a lot of people that are struggling.

Thank you.

Should non-U.S. citizens who are legal residents of the United States be allowed to vote in local elections?

Yeah, I, I have some I have some issues with it.

I understand they pay taxes.

and but I still have some concerns, so I'm not sure on that one.

Thank you.

Yes.

They live in the community.

They work in the community.

They'd be taxed in the community.

They're affected by the laws of their community.

They should be able to vote locally.

Would you support a supervised consumption site opening in your home county, also known as a safe injection site?

Lieutenant governor?

yes.

I supported the overdose prevention site, and it's in the county I live in.

I do think over time, hopefully we'll have them in other places so that folks who have substance use disorder can have access to a safe site.

in the past, I thought they might be worth trying.

But after talking with people in drug treatment, I think we can spend that money better in other ways.

Thank you.

Here's a fun one.

What's one word to describe your opponent, John Rodgers.

I would say wow.

One word.

Sorry.

Dishonest.

Slightly.

Lieutenant governor.

Clear.

He.

This question comes from a listener named Christine.

If Vermont were to be annexed to another country, contiguous or not.

Which one would you choose?

Are you on first, Lieutenant?

well, probably, something along the Scandinavian line.

I think we had agree.

Maybe.

Sweden.

there we go.

All right.

Perfect.

We'll end with that.

Time now for a closing statement from each candidate.

The order was determined randomly before the show ended.

Lieutenant governor, you are going to start us off.

Well, thank you for the opportunity.

I was inspired by Bernie many years ago, and I've been a public servant for 24 of the last 28 years while operating my organic vegetable, pork and chicken farm.

I've worked hard for you, fighting successfully to increase the minimum wage and invest in more affordable housing, reduce exposure to toxic chemicals, lead on civil rights like marriage equality and criminal justice reforms.

I've worked hard to address the opioid crisis, and I've worked tirelessly to fight climate change, both in public service and as an organic, regenerative farmer.

I know the education funding system is hurting working class people.

While many second homeowners and higher income people are paying a lower tax rate than you are.

We have to change that.

The Senate will have more than half of its members new in their first or second terms this coming session.

Experience matters.

I have a track record of running the Senate in an efficient and respectful way.

I also have the support of every environmental group, every labor group.

Let's grow kids.

Action fund.

And I hope you'll join them in supporting me on November 5th.

And you can visit my website, Zuckerman for v.com to reach out if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

John Rodgers.

Yes.

Thank you.

I served in the state House as a Democrat for 16 years, and my values haven't changed.

And I really hope listeners, appreciate that and look into my record.

look at our web site and see who I really am, because I have been courageous.

I was courageous in leaving the party that I've been part of my whole life, because the party no longer supports working class and poor Vermonters.

And the problem is there are two Vermont's, and it's represented at this table people who aren't worried about making money every day.

And good for them, you know, good for all the listeners who are are doing well.

But we've got to realize there's a lot of people in Vermont that are and the regressive taxes are crushing them fiscally.

I'm proud to have the most popular governor in the nations support, and I hope I can count on the listener support as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This concludes the general election debate for Vermont Lieutenant Governor on Vermont Public.

Many thanks to the two candidates for being part of the program today.

John Rodgers of West Glover, thank you.

And Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman of Hinesburg Thank you.

Thank you.

Front Porch Forum is Vermont Public's lead outreach partner for the Citizens Agenda Project.

The Vermont Public Debate series is produced by Holt, Albee and John Erons with production support from Daniela Ferro, Andrea Lauren, David Rice, Brain Stevenson, Kaylee Mumford, Joey Palumbo, Riley Cartwright and Frank Alwine.

Our timekeeper is Rick Barrett.

Audio engineering by Peter English, radio direction by James Stewart and video direction by Mike Dunn.

I'm Mikaela LeFrak.

Thank you for listening and watching, and we'll catch up again soon.