“I’m not running to be governor,” he said in an interview last week. “I’m running to do something as governor.”
Galbraith, a Democrat from Townshend, hopes to make things simple for voters. He’s advancing a few straightforward policies he believes Vermont needs, and he’s telling Vermonters exactly how he’ll enact them.
He hopes to raise the minimum wage to $12.50 immediately, reaching $15 by 2021. He would ban industrial wind power from the ridgelines. And he would institute publicly financed universal health care, with an eye to a single-payer system in the future.
“If it turns out I can’t accomplish it, then I think people shouldn’t vote for me for re-election,” he said. “I’m not just interested in sitting in another chair or having another title.”
Galbraith’s approach to health care funding exemplifies his style. The sitting governor, Peter Shumlin, is not seeking re-election, in part because of the popularity hit he took when he failed to follow through on his single-payer promises.
But “it’s not that Peter Shumlin was unable,” Galbraith said. “He was unwilling.”
Shumlin and his administration “pretended,” Galbraith said, that they had to work to figure out a way to pay for such a system. Then Galbraith repeated the word: “pretended.”
The sole answer, he said, was obvious: a payroll tax. And, even though such a measure could prove unpopular, that is exactly what Galbraith proposes — a 2 percent payroll tax on employers that would raise upwards of $200 million to finance the system.
“Elections are about choices,” he said, “and so I’m providing a choice, which is indeed a liberal, progressive choice.”
His approach is similar to many other progressives’ — “Except for one thing,” he said, leaning forward to catch a reporter’s eye. “I level with the voters and tell them how I’ll pay for it.”
Galbraith, 65, returned to Vermont at the close of the last decade with a storied international career behind him: first U.S. ambassador to Croatia, leading critic of the Bush wars, revealer of war crimes in the Balkans and the Middle East alike.
He left foreign service in 2009 as the second-in-command of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, where he uncovered election fraud that he believed his superiors had failed to prevent. He trumpeted the news, and soon found himself out in the cold.
Elected to the Vermont Senate in 2010, he gained a reputation as a brilliant but combative lawmaker, introducing amendments to nearly every bill, initiating the state’s ban on fracking and introducing the abortive attempt at universal health care in 2014. He decided not to seek a third term that year.
Now, as he seeks to position himself as the most progressive candidate next to fellow Democrats Sue Minter and Matt Dunne in Vermont’s Aug. 9 primary, a conversation with Galbraith often becomes a tallying of the ways in which he believes he is the most liberal.
Like Minter, who now calls it the primary issue of her campaign, Galbraith supports universal background checks on gun sales. He also would ban the sale of assault weapons and armor-piercing (so-called “cop-killing”) rounds.
Unlike Minter, he would not delay legalization of marijuana based on the lack of a test for drugged driving. Prohibition hasn’t worked, he says — so legalize it, and bring in revenue for the state.
And the health-care plan, one of his marquee policies, by no means ends with the payroll tax. Galbraith also proposes a raise to doctors’ salaries and a significant cut to those of hospital administrators, from millions in some cases to a mere $350,000.
“As the economist John Kenneth Galbraith observed,” he began, grinning at the allusion to his father, a Harvard intellectual who served in the administrations of four presidents, ” ‘a CEO salary in the modern world is not driven by market forces, but rather it is a warm personal gesture by the CEO to his most favorite person.’ ”
In another policy provision, he wants to cut down on tax breaks and giveaways to businesses on economic development, which he calls “a form of blackmail.” In Royalton, for example, the company G.W. Plastics recently agreed to expand a plant in exchange for a $500,000 state grant, creating by its own estimation about 70 jobs.
“In terms of grants, it’s something I would eliminate,” Galbraith said of the deal.
Galbraith acknowledged that, in a year where Republicans have a shot at the governor’s office, the GOP could attack him on pro-business lines. He also recognized that he may not find unwavering support in the Legislature.
But, he contended, should he be elected, it would constitute an unmistakable message from voters.
“I am running with a very clear platform,” he said. “I am offering a very clear choice. Nobody can say that voters didn’t know what they were going to get if they elect me. And so that does constitute a mandate.”
Lest Galbraith appear inflexible in positioning himself as the gubernatorial field’s leftmost candidate, let it be known that he shares a policy idea with none other than Phil Scott, the leading Republican and current lieutenant governor.
“I’m not going to say that one party has all the best ideas,” he said.
Both Galbraith and Scott hope to shorten the legislative session.
Although Galbraith has framed his measure as a way to save money and pay for legislative research to replace lobbyists, Phil Scott’s proposal is geared more toward preventing lawmakers from coming up with expensive ideas.
“There’s some merit to that, too,” Galbraith said.
This is part of Galbraith’s recently announced ethics policy, which would include a ban on corporate contributions to Vermont officials, but does not include publicly funded elections.
Galbraith, who became a multimillionaire from the sale of oil investments in Iraq, bristled slightly at a question about the lack of public electoral funding: Does it not privilege the independently wealthy?
“It is true that the independently wealthy have some advantages in the political system, but the corollary to that doesn’t mean that we ought to be in the business of allowing corporations to subvert the campaign finance limits,” he said.
Some of Galbraith’s policies stem from his support for local control. On Act 46, the statewide school district merger law, Galbraith would remove the state Board of Education’s power to mandate consolidation.
He said he recognized the possibility for savings and economies of scale under the law. But, he added, “I object to the coercive nature of this.”
In addition to banning wind farms from ridgelines — he says they damage Vermont’s most precious resource, its environment — he says solar siting should take place under Act 250, Vermont’s landmark law to regulate large development projects.
Now, the location of large-scale solar facilities happens under a regulation called Section 248, which the Public Service Board supervises. Communities such as Strafford have objected to this process, which does not give automatic or final say to towns in solar placement.
“They shouldn’t really be treated much differently than Wal-Mart,” Galbraith said of solar companies. “It is a major merchant activity. We want to encourage economic development, but we want it to go through the various processes of our environmental laws.”
Galbraith recognizes that some of his proposals are not in line with what politicians traditionally consider good for business.
His response is that, in economic terms, Vermont has its own advantage — it’s “a great place to live.”
Galbraith believes that Vermont politicians should focus on the state’s strengths rather than its weaknesses — which is why, for example, he says that promising an influx of young residents is irresponsible. “Vermont for 70 years has had an out-migration of people in their twenties and an in-migration of people in their thirties,” he said.
People come to Vermont, he said, for a clean environment, quality schools, low crime and a sense of community.
That may cost money, he said, but “We’re not going to compete with New Hampshire on low taxes, even if we cut our taxes in half. We certainly don’t want to compete with Texas in having no environmental protections. And we don’t have the resources to compete with (other states) offering all these subsidies and taxpayer giveaways.
“So let’s emphasize what we do have, which is pretty good.”
Rob Wolfe can be reached at rwolfe@vnews.com or at 603-727-3242.