But while Scott touts his experience in Montpelier and working relationships with Democrats, Lisman, a former Wall Street executive who has not held elected office, said his track record shows strong management and leadership skills, which he believes Vermont desperately needs.
“I think I am the best person for change,” said the 69-year-old Lisman, who grew up in Burlington and now lives in Shelburne. “I grew an enterprise from $50 million to $2.3 billion, hired talent, developed a culture with a strong approach to servicing clients on time. Those are characteristics I would want in my governor and I will use them to correct those things that are wrong.”
The 57-year-old Scott, who grew up in Barre, said as the only Republican to hold statewide office in Vermont, he has demonstrated unique political skills in working with the Democratic majority.
“It is a bit lonely and challenging but it gives you the ability to reach a consensus and get things done,” Scott said. “I can do that. I have the respect from the other side. They trust me and know I don’t play politics but do what is best for Vermont.”
Scott has served as lieutenant governor for six years and before that was in the state Senate. He co-owns an excavation company in Middlesex with his cousin.
Scott said his decision to become involved in government grew out of the challenges and obstacles to business created by legislation.
“I didn’t feel (lawmakers) had a good perspective of those challenges,” Scott said. “I thought maybe I should be part of the solution and run for office.”
Regarding Vermont Health Connect, the state’s effort to launch a health care exchange to comply with the federal Affordable Care Act, both Lisman and Scott said it should have been abandoned a long time ago.
“It is a loser of a project,” Lisman said. “There were $250 million of direct costs and it cost another $60 million to manage it. It is never going to work. The best thing to do is to fess up and move on.”
Lisman said the solution is obvious: “My recommendation is not to spend any more on Health Connect and go to the federal exchange.”
A single-payer system for Vermont is not the right approach or even necessary because Vermont already has a very high number of insured citizens and it would push employer sponsored insurance on to the public exchange, Lisman said.
“Practically speaking, it was dead on arrival,” Lisman said.
If elected, Lisman would call for a “Medicaid audit” that he said has been done in other states with favorable results. It could find some recipients who aren’t eligible and others who are getting the wrong benefits.
“Are we offering the best care, enough care and equal access,” are questions Lisman said an audit would answer. “I think you will find a lot of savings.”
Scott would also abandon Health Connect but instead of going right to the federal exchange, he would explore coalitions with other states.
“I think we should transition to something else,” Scott said.
One possibility would be Connecticut, where Scott said the state has set up a successful health care exchange and he has developed a working relationship with officials there. He said he has urged the Shumlin administration to consider such a move but “it fell on deaf ears.”
As far as what went wrong with Health Connect, Scott, who opposes single-payer for Vermont, said the Shumlin administration plowed ahead despite evidence early on it would not work.
“It was a notoriously ill-conceived plan and should have been put to bed the first year,” Scott said. “They got so far into it and they were unwilling to admit defeat.”
Act 46, the Legislature’s latest attempt to rein in education spending in light of declining enrollment statewide, does not have the support of either candidate. They both oppose any attempts to force a school district into consolidation or possibly give up school choice to become part of a district with a minimum of 900 students.
“The problem is spending is out of control,” Scott said. “We are spending $1.6 billion on 20,000 fewer students. The Legislature failed to move forward on any attempt to lower property taxes.”
Scott said Act 46’s downfall was the failure to see the problems it would cause with school choice, such as what happened when the supervisory union comprising Windsor, Weathersfield, Hartland and West Windsor considered a single district to take advantage of financial incentives but has not come to agreement on the question of choice
“School choice must be an option,” Scott said. “Schools should be incentivized to (consolidate) and if they choose to do so the district can reap the savings, not send them back to Montpelier.”
Lisman thinks Act 46 is so flawed it can’t be fixed.
“I am the only candidate who is saying we should scrap Act 46,” he said. “It was poorly researched and the underpinnings are all wrong.”
Lisman said the 900 enrollment figure seems arbitrary and was not proven to cut costs or improve outcomes. He also adamantly supports retaining school choice and opposes forcing districts into consolidation. “If a district is delivering results at a low cost, why force them to merge?” Lisman asked.
Act 60, the original education law intended to make funding more equitable across the state and assist poorer communities was well-intentioned but has served only to strip districts of local control, Lisman said.
He favors allowing most of the money raised locally for schools to be in the hands of those communities and give the state a smaller percentage to address equitability.
One way to save money, Lisman argues, is raising class sizes by 10 percent to 15 percent. He said Massachusetts did it without adversely affecting education. “We could save $165 million.”
The renewable energy legislation that was initially vetoed by Gov. Peter Shumlin then reworked by Democrats and passed, gives local communities the ability to draft renewable energy plans that would give more teeth to stopping or modifying wind and solar projects.
“I’m not a fan of big wind on our ridge tops,” Lisman said. “I would call for a moratorium on big wind and big solar projects.”
Lisman said he does not believe the legislation passed this session gives local communities enough protection against developers who he said “care more about generating return than how you live.”
Scott’s position is more middle of the road. While he opposed large wind projects, he thinks solar has a stronger future if siting is done properly.
“There has to be a buy-in from the local communities. They need a voice,” Scott said. “It is not the duty of the state government to force on communities these large-scale projects.”
While Lisman said he favors making renewable energy projects go through the Act 250 environmental process, Scott said he thinks that is overkill.
“If you go too far, (Act 250) simply becomes a tool to stop development,” Scott said. “Act 250 oversight on energy projects could pull in simple line extensions and delay them indefinitely. I think it is shortsighted.”
Scott’s position on marijuana legalization is “not saying never, I’m saying not now.” He said the governor of Colorado, where voters approved marijuana for recreational use, is telling other states to wait a couple of years to see the full effect in Colorado.
“I think that is good advice,” Scott said. “We have to know what we are going into with our eyes wide open. Let’s measure the positives and negatives and do it right. There is no need to hurry at this time.”
Lisman said marijuana has medicinal value but he opposes legalizing it for recreational use.
On the issue of guns, neither said he believes Vermont gun laws need to be changed in light of recent violence in other parts of the country. And if there were changes, they question whether those changes would actually reduce gun violence.
They will face off in the Aug. 9 primary with the winner going up against the winner of the Democratic primary race that includes former state Sen. Matt Dunne, of Hartland, former Vermont Secretary of Transportation Sue Minter, of Waterbury, and Peter Galbraith, a former state senator and former U.S. ambassador from Townshend.
Patrick O’Grady can be reached at pogclmt@gmail.com.
