Ask Amanda Anything
Dear Voters,
For too long, it has felt like politics has been driven by special interests, powerful insiders, and the people with the biggest checkbooks. I think it's time to put everyday Vermonters back at the center of the conversation.
This campaign is about people over politics. That means I'd rather answer the questions that matter to the people of Caledonia-Essex than the talking points coming from Montpelier or special interest groups.
So, ask me anything.
Each week, I'll share responses to 2-3 questions on my Facebook page and here on the campaign website. My goal is to keep each response honest, straightforward, and concise so you know where I stand and why.
I look forward to hearing from you and earning your vote on November 3, 2026.
Amanda
Questions and Answers
1. Do you support a foundation formula in education to budget schools and start to cost control education spending and skyrocketing education property taxes? And do you support school choice?
Yes, to both.
Vermont families are feeling the squeeze. Property taxes are going up, the cost of just about everything is rising, and people are asking a fair question: How do we keep our schools strong without making it harder for families to afford to live here?
I support moving toward a foundation formula for education funding through Act 73 and H.955. I believe Vermont needs a fairer and more predictable way to fund our schools so that the burden doesn’t fall so heavily on property taxpayers.
But I also believe local people should have a say in what happens to their schools.
Every community is different. What makes sense in one part of Vermont may not make sense in another.
The work beginning this summer through the Cooperative Educational Service Agencies, or CESAs, can help us understand what we can actually save by sharing services across districts. We should look for smart, practical ways to reduce costs and make tax dollars go further. But we also need to be honest about how much mergers or other changes can actually save, and let local voters have the final say about what works best for their communities.
We also need to recognize that property taxes don’t affect everyone equally.
A working family trying to keep up with the bills, an older Vermonter on a fixed income, a renter, or a homeowner who is already struggling can experience a tax increase very differently from someone with plenty of room in their budget.
I support meaningful tax relief for renters, lower-income homeowners, veterans, and older Vermonters. The tax credits and relief included in the Yield Bill this past session were important steps. As we move toward a new way of funding education, we need to make sure we continue to provide property tax relief.
And there is another major piece of this conversation that is essential: rising healthcare costs. Schools spend a significant amount on healthcare for their employees, just like other employers do. If we want to get serious about controlling education costs, we also need to get serious about bringing down the cost of healthcare. Making meaningful progress there could reduce school expenses and help take pressure off taxpayers.
I also support school choice in our region.
My children attend St. Johnsbury School and St. Johnsbury Academy, and I’ve seen the value of having different educational options in the Northeast Kingdom. Our independent schools offer excellent opportunities for students and are major economic drivers in our communities. We should protect and strengthen those opportunities—not take them away from families or communities.
2. What do you think should be done about the homelessness and criminal activity in St. Johnsbury?
The challenges of homelessness, mental health, substance use, and criminal behavior are connected, but they are not the same, and we shouldn’t treat everyone experiencing them as if they are. Any of us could face a crisis without the family, resources, or support system to get back on our feet. Unfortunately, our social safety net has too many gaps.
Those gaps did not appear overnight. Wages have remained stagnant for years even while the cost of living increases. For decades, political choices at the federal and state levels have left us underinvested in affordable housing, mental health care, substance use treatment, childcare, transportation, and other basic supports. We have shifted more responsibility onto states and communities while too often failing to provide the resources to meet those needs.
Too often, we wait until someone is homeless, in crisis, or involved with the criminal justice system before we intervene. By then, the problem is harder and more expensive to solve. Housing, healthcare, treatment, employment, childcare, transportation, and food security are connected. A job loss, illness, or unexpected expense can quickly become a much larger crisis when there is nowhere to turn.
We need to invest more upstream—in prevention and basic economic security—and create better continuity of care. A shelter bed without a path to permanent housing, housing without access to treatment, or treatment without follow-up support isn’t enough. We should also make sure the programs we already fund work together and follow what we know works.
And we have to be honest about public safety. People deserve to feel safe in their communities. Violence and property destruction must have consequences. But incarceration alone does not solve homelessness, addiction, or untreated mental illness, and most people who are incarcerated eventually return to our communities.
This is not about endlessly expanding government or writing a check for every problem. It is about asking whether the money we are already spending is actually producing the outcomes we want. Are we paying for crisis after crisis, or are we investing in solutions that keep people from reaching that crisis in the first place? Are our programs working together, or are people falling through the cracks between them?
We can’t wish these problems away, and we can’t simply wish people away. We need accountability, effective services, and a safety net that helps people get stable and stay stable. Government should be there before someone loses everything, not just after. That means investing in prevention, continuity of care, and basic economic security while protecting our communities and holding people accountable. Ultimately, that is better for struggling Vermonters, families, businesses, and all of us.
3. What do you think about Act 181? Do you agree with the changes made last session?
I followed what happened with Act 181 and I have been encouraged by what took place when people across rural Vermont came together and made their voices heard. The Legislature ultimately listened and repealed the “road rule” that would have created a new permitting trigger for certain private roads, as well as the planned Tier 3 protections. I agree with this change and I also support the amendment which allowed for improvements on accessory on-farm businesses without triggering a permit. Farmers should have the freedom to grow, diversify, and find new ways to make a living without unnecessary barriers from Montpelier.
To me, the partial repeal of Act 181 is also a lesson in how government should work. Legislators on both sides need to listen to the people who actually live and work in our communities before creating sweeping new rules and centralized plans. Rural Vermont has different needs than Chittenden County, and one-size-fits-all solutions don’t work. Instead of adding more rules, we should give communities the tools, resources, and local expertise they need to solve challenges like housing and economic development. People who live here should have a seat at the table from the get-go, not be an afterthought.