TrumpImpeachedAugust

TrumpImpeachedAugust t1_jdselwf wrote

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/21/005/00472b

In theory, the law protects the right of all non-essential employees to attend Town Meeting, as long as they provide 7 days notice.

In practice...well, honestly I'm not even sure many people are aware of this law. Willing to bet that lots of businesses would just declare all their scheduled employees to be "essential," but I also don't get the impression that there's an awareness of the ostensible legal protection here.

13

TrumpImpeachedAugust t1_j9uliab wrote

More and more, I'm starting to believe something that feels extra controversial: confessions should not be admissible in court, and it should not be possible to plead guilty. Reason being that there are just so many people who did not commit a crime, and yet end up confessing to it and/or pleading guilty, thus pointlessly ruining their lives.

When this happens, it's usually due to one of two main factors: either they entered an interrogation in good faith and succumbed to psychological pressure, or they were offered a plea deal that would only ruin their life a little bit.

The onus for proving guilt should fall entirely upon the state. Especially in this era where video evidence, DNA evidence, and extensively abundant meta data is readily accessible. It simply is not worth imprisoning innocent people for the sheer convenience of an expedited trial/sentencing.

1

TrumpImpeachedAugust t1_j28ptjo wrote

5 cents per can when the redemption act was passed in 1972 would be 36 cents today. Source. (Good god, it was 34 cents when I checked this stat nine months ago.)

Could you imagine redeeming two 12-packs worth of empties and having enough money to get yourself a small lunch? That's what it was like when the act was passed.

This kind of stuff needs to be indexed to inflation. It pains me that it never is. How hard would it be to add a clause to the bill stating that the redemption values printed on cans shall increase each year (or every 5 years, or whatever) at the rate of inflation over the same time frame, rounded down (or up) to the nearest cent.

It would be so easy. Just raise the redemption price and include an inflation-indexing clause and this would be future-proofed.

56

TrumpImpeachedAugust t1_j20pd8d wrote

> It got killed very quickly. Our legislators work for wealthy people and tourists, not us.

Our legislative compensation makes sure of this.

In order to be a legislator in Vermont, you either need to be independently wealthy, or otherwise self-funded, which tends to result in a lot of business-owner legislators.

I'm not just referring to the money needed in order to run for office--once they're in office, they need to have a source of wealth, because they are paid ~$750/week (plus a per diem) but only for the 18 weeks that the legislature is in session. The result is not enough to live on for a year.

This means that unless you happen to work in a field where you can just disappear for four months in a row every spring, you have to be independently wealthy or retired. If you or I ran for office and won, we'd probably be financially ruined.

It's a controversial opinion, but I think we need to pay our state legislators more. The current system means that regular Vermonters literally could not afford to hold office even if they won it. You'd be elected to office, have to quit your job, and then survive on the $14k/yr legislative salary plus whatever seasonal minimum wage jobs you could find. (Except a good legislator has work to do year-round, making seasonal employment even more difficult.)

7