Col#291-8/3/26
VERMONT NEEDS A NEW GOVERNOR
By
Richard Davis
Governor Phil Scott needs to retire as Vermont’s governor. Five two-year terms is enough. His ideas have become outdated and his approach to problem solving does not seem to be working for the benefit of a majority of Vermonters.
When Scott was first elected I was fearful that he didn’t know enough about health care issues to be able to move the state forward. My fears were realized and he still seems to be locked into the position that the private market is the way to go to improve access and affordability to health care. How’s that working out Governor?
Luckily we have two extremely capable candidates running as Democrats to defeat Scott. Amanda Janoo and Aly Richards both have work credentials that make it clear they are able to tackle some of the state’s most difficult problems and to develop fresh new approaches. The Vermont primary is August 11 and Democratic voters have an excellent but difficult choice to make.
Both candidates are native Vermonters. Richards is no stranger to the political world. She has helped to pass legislation to make child care more accessible and affordable in Vermont. She knows the political process and she knows how to get things done.
According to her web site, “I started working for the Governor and spent my days talking to Vermonters. I heard what they cared about most, like affordability and access to good paying jobs. And I quickly realized that the lack of access to affordable child care was a root cause to so many of these issues.
So I jumped right in and got to work. I led a movement of over 40,000 parents, small business owners, and early childhood educators to pass the most significant child care law in the country. We organized, we rallied, we fought; we came together across party lines and, against the odds, we won. Together, we made child care more affordable and more accessible.”
She has some good ideas when it comes to health care. She understands the threat that rural hospitals are facing and she is a proponent of universal primary care. She seems to understand the major issues facing the state and she offers some practical ideas to approach those problems.
Amanda Janoo has experience in international affairs and her comments about solutions to problems look at things from the 40,000 foot perspective. She does seem capable of transforming high-minded ideas into practical work based on her work experience.
According to her website, “I grew up working class but was able to study with world-renowned economists at Oxford and Cambridge thanks to my great public education in Vermont. I learned to understand not only how economies work, but how we change them. I worked at the UN, helping governments to build resilient and diversified economies that could generate good jobs and broad-based prosperity. In recent years, I’ve worked at the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll), focused on helping high-income countries like Canada, New Zealand and Wales to design and evaluate their economies by their contribution to social and ecological wellbeing (rather than stock market values or GDP growth rates). I moved back to Vermont permanently in 2018, because this is home and the place that I want to live for the rest of my life.”
She is a proponent of free universal primary care. She makes it clear that she thinks Scott is taking us in the wrong direction.
As is the case with any candidate, it is difficult to know how they will make the leap from candidate to office holder. There is no way to know which candidate will govern best. We listen to them and gather as much information as we can to make an informed decision.
What distinguishes the two Democratic candidates is economic policy. I think Janoo’s background in economics will help her focus more on the finances of the state. As we approach pending financial health crises and housing affordability crises I think Janoo will be better able to come up with and execute practical solutions.
Either candidate would be an asset to Vermont and would govern well and wisely. I’m casting my vote for Janoo because we need someone who knows where the money is and how to make it work for all of us.



Either is Better than More Scott
This was a discussion in my home a few weeks ago. Either Janoo or Richards will make a good Governor, and it’s a pleasure for once to be able to say that.
Both sounded fine
Heard both on the radio and also thought either would be good.
It’ll be important to rally behind whomever gets the primary nod to defeat Scott.
The CHILD on the ballot will take votes away from the Democrat!
I’m sure I’ve complained about this somewhere on some blog in the past, pointing out that a CHILD candidate could be invited to ADULT gatherings where alcoholic beverages are served, putting the CHILD at risk of pedophiles.
Also, and most obviously and concretely true,
is the fact that the Vermont Secretary of State is potentially
aiding and abetting criminal “Mafia” type gangs and criminal
enterprises if, (if!!!) a CHILD should be elected Governor of Vermont
and be in charge of billions of our tax dollars and in charge of how
much of our taxes are dispersed and spent.
A 14 YEAR OLD CAN NOT FACE FIDUCIARY LIABILITY CHARGES
and could be used by criminal enterprises to divert our hard earned tax dollars to criminal use or to embezzle it for them.
“Under Vermont law, a 14-year-old generally cannot hold fiduciary responsibility or face personal civil liability for a breach of fiduciary duty because they lack the legal capacity to enter into binding contracts, manage estates, or execute trust powers. The age of majority in Vermont is 18 years old. (State of Vermont Legislature)”
Therefore, our Vermont Secretary of State, in my opinion, is violating the law by allowing a 14 year old CHILD on the ballot, even though there is no age limit listed in Vermont election law.
There doesn’t have to be an age limit listed in Vermont election law because a 14 year old CHILD has no fiduciary responsibility and CAN NOT PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNOR BECAUSE THE CHILD HAS NO FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY.
Therefore, in my opinion, the Vermont Secretary of State should immediately rescind, void, vacate, expunge the child’s name from the ballot.
I believe it is a serious problem of seriously, willfully and intentionally perverting the outcome of the election to have a 14 year old CHILD on the ballot taking votes away from valid candidates.
As long as this fraud against the outcome of an election goes on,
the Democrats have no chance of winning against incumbent Phil Scott because some votes that might otherwise have gone to a Democrat candidate will go to a child boy under age 18.