 Welcome to ongoing general election coverage by Town Meeting Television. This is one of our series forums. We're bringing you in advance of the general election in November. Town Meeting TV host forums with all candidates and covers all ballot items you will see on your November ballot. Town Meeting TV election forums introduce you to community decision makers and connect you with issues that shape your local community. If you're watching this live we welcome your questions on 802-862-3966 and you can watch live on Town Meeting TV on Comcast channel 1087 and Ballington Telecom channels 17 and 217 as well as online on youtube.com Town Meeting TV. Alright, without further ado I will introduce your candidates for tonight and they will then give us their opening statements. On my immediate right I have Tiffany Blumlee and I also have Gabrielle in the middle, Gabrielle Stebbins and then I have Tom Lakata and I will invite Tom to begin with his opening statement. You have a minute. Oh sure. So why I got involved in this race is because there's kind of an unspoken elephant in the room and a revolution is defined as a kind of change in government or substantial change in society or culture and that's what we're going through right now. Black Lives Matter, critical race theory. These are all Marxist in origin. The founders of Black Lives Matter are on tape acknowledging that. Critical race theory started out in 1989 at a Wisconsin convent. Richard Delgado and Kimberly Crenshaw are two of the progenitors of critical race theory and Richard Delgado wrote a book, Critical Race Theory, an introduction which I read and he says that he quipped how fun it was that a bunch of Marxists were in an old convent conjuring up critical race theory. So my two opponents here are they're very much in line with both critical race theory and Black Lives Matter and we have to have a really public conversation about that. It's being taught in our schools now, it's being taught in our government offices and it's really a rejection of our principles in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well. Thank you very much. Actually, I had you open your statement without reading you what the question would have been please tell us why you're running or your experience, the experience you bring to your position and what will be different and what would you do if you get this position. So you've answered it really well and so I will now invite Gabrielle. Thank you. Thank you. So it's been a real honor to serve south end of Burlington for the last two years. It's been a unique first term for both Tiff and I both because everyone in the building knew that we needed to work together to help Vermont through this pandemic and also because we had just unprecedented federal dollars coming our way. We were able to pass an 8.3 billion dollar balanced transformative budget that did not raise taxes and if a budget says what you care about in terms of policy, here are some of the things we care about. 138 million in community workforce and economic development to grow jobs, 92 million for affordable housing, 215 million for climate initiatives, 50 million for higher ed so that folks can actually rebuild our economy, 96 million for broadband, 114 million for water quality because we do need clean water, 26 million in long overdue increases for community health and social service providers, 40 million for public transportation and the list goes on. We did so much but we have so much more to do as a working mom of a 5 and a 12 year old. I know that we have a real opportunity to take the additional federal dollars coming our way through the Inflation Reduction Act and to make sure that we really address the key issues that I'm hearing from constituents which is making their lives more affordable, addressing public safety, addressing childcare, mental health considerations, education, how to change our high school with PCBs, economic development, climate change, those are the things I'm hearing my neighbors say they want us to work on and if you look at our track record, you can take a look at StebbinsforVT.com and you'll see what we've been up to. Thank you so much, Gripira and next we have Tiffany. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for the invitation to do this. I jumped in the race having never thought I would go into politics because we were in the middle of a pandemic and all of a sudden conversations started to change. We started to change the way we thought about who's essential as a worker, right? We understood childcare really as an economic lever and not just as an issue for individual families to try to figure out and I think we became way more aware than we ever have of just how many people lack housing and so your question was about what would change for people in the district and as Gabrielle mentioned, I think we passed an enormous number of pieces of important legislation over the last couple of years and so while in the state house, I think I'm most proud of having helped, you know, pass a pension deal that nobody thought was going to be possible. A thousand dollar child tax credit for middle to low income families with children under five, we put $92 million into housing and we passed two critical constitutional amendments but that's not all you do, we sit in Montpelier so I've worked with 35 households to help them get their unemployment insurance checks to resolve issues with the Department of Labor to find out who was dunning them for the $50 because they weren't identified and finally, you know, both Gabrielle and I have prioritized maintaining consistent relationships with people in the City Council, people on the school board so that we're aware of what's happening in our community so this is the work, I've loved it and been honored to do it and I hope I'll have a chance to do it again. Thank you. The next question is on education and we'll have Gabrielle answer this question. The Legislature can make impacts on how education is funded statewide. Do you see the need for changes to find how we fund education and how would you use your office to move changes forward? So one of the interesting things that I did not know when I actually got in the State House is my day job is as a clean energy expert for a firm based in Heinsberg that does a lot of national consulting and so I know a lot about that world but what you realize when you get in Montpelier is that your constituents come to you with issues and they say this is critical and so one of the things that I'm really proud about is the fact that I had several constituents come to me and say you need to fix how we have not updated how we weight what it costs to educate our children. We all know it costs more to educate a high school student if you need to have a chemistry lab or you need to be able to teach high level advanced placement mathematics or three different languages compared to like second grade but we had not updated those weights in 20 years so the Burlingtonian representatives and senators and many many others across the straight rural communities you name it worked together to make sure that we took care of the kids who had not yet for 20 years been getting what they needed. So out of that there was a lot of discussion about how do we pay for this. The system is way too complex. We have a lot of Vermonters who are land rich and cash poor and we really need to reassess that property based approaches. There is a bipartisan study group going on currently. The report's supposed to come out soon and I will definitely be reading that and looking into that. I do want to note that one of the things I've heard from a lot of neighbors is the concern about PCBs and how to pay for our high school. Standing at the polls in August there was a teacher there who said I know we need to get our kids out of Macy's but it is so expensive to pay our bills right now. So I am really looking forward to what Tiff said working with our city counselors, working with our school board, working with other Vermont school systems that are having their schools tested right now for PCBs and they're finding out that they're going to have a problem too. So we need to bring back school construction aid and a whole lot of things and I'm sorry I talked too much. Thank you. I'm done. You're okay. And I will ask Tom to respond. Sure. Right now primarily the school funding goes to teachers unions and the administration. It goes to teachers and then it goes to the Progressive Democrat Party. Over 90% of teachers in the unions money goes to the Democrat Party. It's almost like a syndicate right now. And the children and the families aren't really their last in line. So my funding solution would be to fund through families and parents and let them decide where they're children, what's best for their children. So school choice would be among my top issues and try to get the politics out of education. Thank you so much. And I will now allow... We worked in tandem on this question of school funding as it relates to the waiting. And so I don't have much to add to what Gabrielle said. I guess I want to... Your question was about funding. Right. And I think what I'd just like to say is that I think our schools are under tremendous pressures right now. And it's... You know, you look at the number of vacancies that exist. I think COVID has had an extraordinary impact on schools. The pressure on teachers and administrators has been phenomenal. And I'm married to somebody who runs a school and that is a... It has been exhausting for everybody. I think that we... There are teachers who are leaving not just because they are exhausted though but because they're afraid for their personal safety given this state's gun laws. And so given what has happened around the country. And I'm really proud of the work we did to shore up teacher pensions because it is a promise that we made and it is something that everybody could agree to. Even the administration reps until they didn't. Okay. I'm going to have you hold on to that because later on we'll be asking you a question about the gun laws. For right now, I will move on to the third question and I will have you begin by... It's on healthcare and by answering the following question. We know about the increasing cost of healthcare and what it's putting pressure on the Romanters and the state-wide economy. And I heard you mention about COVID and you know how it's sharpened our focus on inequities. And what do you think is the next thing for healthcare to do as far as changes in Vermont? And please be specific. Well, I'm not an expert in healthcare but I have tried desperately to learn as much as I can about it because I think it's one of the most critical issues that we face and it affects the budget in all kinds of ways. And the question is written really is about how do we reduce the burden of healthcare for families and individuals and so I'll start with my premise that that is that guaranteeing access to quality healthcare is one of the primary responsibilities of government and we've already affirmed this in creating Medicare, Medicaid and Dr. Dinosaur. And so I've had struggled to learn well, what can we affect in the state versus what is really a federal issue that we can't influence? And so here are a few things that we can do to try to lower costs in Vermont. First, we can create, we can reduce our reliance on traveling nurses and temporary personnel by creating the workforce that we need and the legislature appropriated money to do just that and we'll need to do more. We've got to start to move away from paying for procedures versus because that incentivizes the high cost procedures and it disincentivizes primary care, pediatric care, geriatric care. We're a small state and we don't have to have four hospitals that specialize in this kind of surgery or that kind of treatment. So we need to incentivize coordination and perhaps even asking hospitals to stop doing certain things. And then finally, we have to enforce some continuity in terms of pricing because as the state auditor said, you can pay either $4,200 or $2,600 or $1,600 for an MRI depending on where you go and that doesn't make any sense to me. This is obviously something that you're very passionate about but you're going to allow Gabrielle to respond and remember you have a minute and a half. Okay, so building off of what Tiff said, actually for the past five years we've been really looking at how to reform from what you were talking about procedures which another word for it is fee-for-service model to a value-based model in which providers are paid for for the health outcome. And I think we are seeing real progress in this area in terms of Act 167, which we passed this past year, to try and keep chipping away at what the challenges are. Unfortunately, we're still just chipping away at it. And in terms of how to address affordability, one of the things that viewers should definitely know is that for some of you, if you're, let me look at my notes, if you're purchasing through Vermont Health Connect or directly through MVP or BCPC or if you're uninsured, ARPA has subsidies based off of your income level to help you pay, to help you reduce your premiums. Again, federal support, not a tax increase for us Vermonters and really helpful for folks who are struggling. And the other thing is access that Tiff mentioned. And one of the things that we worked on going back to economic development is putting $12.5 million into nursing labs into trying to really boost more educational opportunities so that we can see a lot more public health providers out there as well as some changes in telehealth that we allowed for so that more people could get quicker and solid access to healthcare when they need it rather than waiting, waiting, waiting. Thank you so much for your response. And now I invite Tom. Okay, thank you. What was the question again? The question is about the increasing cost of healthcare and what the pressure it's putting on the Vermonters and the state economy. And we also talked about COVID and how it's sharpened our focus on inequities in healthcare. And so what do you think is the next thing for healthcare to do? What changes does Vermont expect to see? So it was several decades ago Vermont once had a plethora of insurance companies. They had a dozen, two dozen insurance companies. And then I think it might have been under the Howard Dean administration that Democrats put in all kinds of regulations and now we only have two or three substantial insurance companies. And because they're so small, essentially they're just administrative agents of the state. And so now we have more or less a state-run healthcare system. And if you would free up the healthcare market, bring in more insurers, bring in more competition, it's well known that competition brings prices down and it will bring quality up. So we need to deregulate the healthcare industry and not make it a monolithic government-run healthcare industry. Thank you. And now the next question is about criminal justice reform. And I will have you respond first and then Gabrielle will follow and Tiffany. Okay, and remember you have a minute and a half because we have a bunch of other questions. I've been good on time. Okay, so how does Chinden County address crime? And is there a problem with policing that needs reform? How would you address community safety? So those are three questions. Yeah, the problem isn't with the police, the problem is with the culture. The community policing was more or less doing well. And then it was probably the advent of the George Floyd murder followed by Black Lives Matter and Antifa and then critical race theory and the culture shifted. And so then they defunded the police, the progressive Democrats, these two young ladies here were behind that whole movement. And so now we have poor police morale, we have a lot less police. Prosecutors like the progressive Democrat, Sarah George, doesn't prosecute them anymore. Most of them are, many of them are not funded by George Soros. And so there's a whole culture shift that has to be turned around. And these are all again, I mentioned revolution in my opening statement and this whole movement is antithetical to our constitutional republic and it needs to be addressed. Thank you so much for your response. And now the floor is yours. Thank you. And to viewers, I really encourage you to look at our track record because much of what Tom is saying is inaccurate. So please check out Stebbins for VT, check out our voting records. Quite a bit of is inaccurate. I do want to say it was, I was glad to see the Vermont Criminal Justice Council that their work is working in terms of decertifying a Williston police officer who had quite a, quite clearly quite a long history of issues being rising up. I do want to say also that I've heard from a lot of neighbors that public safety is one of their top concerns right now. There are two things that you do to reduce crime. One is catching the criminal activity immediately, which you can only do if you have enough police officers. And two, making sure that there's a quick process through the courts. And our courts right now are really backed up. We have neither of those. So we do need to continue the work of the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, but we also very much need to support our public safety providers and enhance the system with mental health providers and address the substance use challenges as well as the housing challenges. Thank you so much. Well, I'll offer a little bit different perspective. So I've been involved in the criminal justice system for about 20 years at both ends. So Vermont works for women trained women to go into the field of law enforcement and we also offer training programs for women who are in prison. And so my perspective on this is informed by these different experiences and everything that I've read that is, everything that I've read suggests that communities are safer when there's economic opportunity, when people have access to quality health care, when there's access to education, when public spaces are well maintained. Now, aside from petty theft and property crimes, actually police statistics reflect a consistent downward trend in the number of violence incidences and in terms of the police activity. But what's gone up are mental health crises, requiring police attention as that's doubled since 2012 and the number of drug overdoses which has gone up 72% over the last two years. So if we feel unsafe, I think it's in part because the social safety net is fraying. And what can we do? We can address those very issues, particularly mental health and substance use. Okay, so they're related. Okay, thank you so much for your response. And now we go to question number five. And it's on the ballot issues. And I will begin with you, Gabrielle, to answer this question. And Tom will follow and you will follow. The question is two constitutional amendments. Constitutional Proposition Two and Proposition Five will be in front of the voters this November. Do you support or oppose? I support both of them. And I want to say that there unfortunately have been a lot of erroneous, completely not factual statements made about in particular Proposition Five. The exact word is that an individual's right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one's own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means. I do believe each of us should be able to make our own reproductive decisions. And with the change at the Supreme Court, this has become even more important. This proposal essentially will maintain the current status quo. We have not, nobody can have an abortion past 21 weeks and six days. The process goes through an ethics review. It only occurs if there's a fetal abnormality or if there's a maternal risk. So much of what you're hearing, please know it's inaccurate. And with regards to Proposal Two, you know, it's a loophole. We need to close a loophole which still allows slavery in Vermont. Thank you so much for your response. And Tom? Yeah. Article 22, the Constitutional Amendment, personal reproductive autonomy, what does that mean? It's deceptively vague and it was purposely written as deceptively vague. Gabrielle said we should have, we should have be allowed reproductive rights. Okay, so what about a man? The amendment doesn't mention a woman. The amendment doesn't mention abortion. So what if a man says I want that child? Does the court say that the man's reproductive rights surpass that of the woman? That is not what the language says. There are so many unwanted children that the man could definitely adopt one of the thousands of kids. So the man could stop the woman from having an abortion? The man can work with the woman. Can the man stop? That is not what the language says. It doesn't say he can't, though, does it? That is not what the language says. You know it's deceptively vague and you're kind of admitting it right now. No, I'm not. As well, the personal reproductive autonomy, could that mean that you could have human cloning? Could you have a three DNA child? Let's say a gay couple, two men want to have a child, and they have a surrogate mother, and right now the science isn't there. And so one of the men will have the DNA of that child, but what if it's possible in the future to have a three DNA child, the DNA from both of the men and the mother? Is that ethical? Should the people debate that? This constitutional amendment could supersede democracy. It takes the decision out of the people and it puts it into the courts. And that's why this very deceptive language will never reach the people. It will always be a decision of the courts and outside of democracy. Thank you for your response. I will give Gabrielle Patty seconds if she has something to say. If you do not, then we'll move on to Tiffany, please. I would love to hear what you have to say. Really, I don't think you're interpreting this language correctly. So I'll leave it at that. I think you and I agree on this issue that what we would be putting in the Constitution is in current statute. And the reason we're putting in the Constitution is that Congress right now is debating whether a bill that might limit abortion at, you know, 15 weeks. And that violates at least the principles that are in our own statutes. I fully support both. The constitutional amendment process is really deliberative. It takes five years from the time you start to work on it to getting it approved by two different legislatures. And then it goes to a public vote. So I feel that the people of Vermont will speak to this and I think they will support both of them. Thank you so much, Tiffin. I'd like to respond to that. Tiff said that the federal law may ban abortions after 15 weeks. And if they actually did that, the supremacy clause supersedes the Constitution. So that amendment would not have, would not have supremacy over the federal law number one. And then you said the, you said the amendment is already, is already a bill and it's not. That personal reproductive, I mean Act 47 allows unregulated, undetermined abortion right up to nine months. Okay? It does. And so this amendment isn't necessary because it's already law that you could have an abortion up to nine months, which is a monstrosity. You cannot have an abortion up to nine months. Yes, you could. No, you cannot. Yes, you can. That is the law. And that's what, and that's what the amendment says. Okay. Thank you so much. I, obviously this is not something that we can solve tonight. And I'd like to be able to cover the questions that we have on hand. So I'm sorry to just bring you back to the next question, which is actually something I'm very passionate about. And it's about the language access and I will allow Tiffany to respond first and then Tom and then Gabrielle. And the question is what is the value to Vermonters in supporting language access to information about health, local government, and education issues? Yeah. I loved that this question was included. It, I didn't fully appreciate prior to the pandemic how little the state has had invested really in translation in providing language support for immigrants who don't speak English as their first language and the role that the Language Justice Project provided in disseminating information about COVID. I thought, I mean it was remarkable and it happened so quickly and that opened my eyes as a campaigner because I thought, oh no, I need to find out what languages are spoken in our district so that our campaign materials could reflect that. The city of Burlington, 12% of residents speak a language other than English at home. We've adopted a language access policy as a city. The state needs to follow suit, I think. There were two bills and one in the House, one in the Senate. They didn't get a hearing. There was a lot going on last year. So I am hopeful that, well, I plan to be a cosponsor of a bill to do just that at the state level. Thank you so much. And who's next? Who? Okay. Which one? You can go Gabrielle. You can go. You know, we have so many Vermonters and so many programs welcoming refugees to our state who are becoming part of the economic fabric of our state from migrant farm workers to some of the teachers in my daughter's who, you know, she goes to school here in Burlington. We can't say please come. Please be part of our community and then not be able to communicate. And we have to decide which way we want it. Do we want a Vermont that is growing, that is economically diverse, and that is communicating both ways? Or do we just want to say welcome but then you're on your own? And I prefer the former. Okay. Thank you so much for your response. And Tom. Okay. I'm not familiar with the term language access. So maybe you could kind of interpret that for me first. What do you mean by language access? Perhaps one of you would like to respond. What do you think? Well, language access meaning giving people who don't speak English as a first language access to vital records, information about health, information about, you know, the city government and filing forms. Et cetera. It's not discriminating based on one's first language. Does that answer your question? Yeah, I guess so. Yeah, I would think firstly, I would think technology could solve a lot of it, right? There's, you could speak into a computer now and ask it to interpret that into another language. So I think that the technology should be there to do it. Okay. Thank you for your response. And now we move on to the next question. We don't have too much time. We have question seven asking about community access currently funded primarily by cable customers and revenue for community TV is in decline. How would you see the legislature supporting community access TV such as provides for this forum? So do you want a response? And then Gabrielle and then Tiffany. Oh, sure. Thank you. It's being funded right now through cable, cable revenue, correct? I'd have to look at the, I like to know that the viewership of this shows like this and see how many people are actually watching it. I would start there. And then in conjunction with that, I would look at the budget, the state budget and see if prioritize things like healthcare, criminal justice, media, et cetera. And make a decision from there. Thank you. Do you have a response? Yeah, I mean, having public opportunities to participate and listen to discussions like this is critical. And particularly as more and more people are getting their news from channels that aren't news like social media, it becomes even more important. I think there's a real opportunity to look at, you know, some of what we're seeing. We just had $94 million through broadband to look at how we start to develop longer term financial planning. The fact that the FCC voted to, you know, basically reduce over time what the cable expenditures would be to community access should be reassessed. And how can we re bolster that bigger picture? Understanding also that the digital age and how we communicate is changing. So when there is change, when there is market change, we're going to see new opportunities for new income streams. And that's one of the areas that I think we need to actually identify. And if the FCC isn't going to change their decision, then where are new alternatives coming from the new markets that we're seeing? Thank you so much. Tiffany? Yeah, I really, we haven't even talked about this, but I do agree with you about that. And so my dad had, there was a community access station in Arizona where we grew up and he was a lawyer and he did this thing called law talk. And he would present issues that would often be really, they would seem overly complicated to people who aren't lawyers. And he would explain certain things. And one day we were on the street and somebody came up to him and said, hey, I got to thank you for that, that session on, you know, contracts. And, you know, there were a couple of things that I was able to ask the question and I avoided a big problem. And I said, well, all of a sudden it dawned on me, wow, TV could serve a public purpose. You know, it never thought about that because it was entertainment to me. And this station and others like it have did that in COVID, they stepped up and you were the, you were our source of information. And our way into government meetings that by definition had to be on Zoom. And so I, yeah, we have to figure out the business model. Thank you so much. Next question is citizen legislation. And I'll begin with Tom and then you'll finish. All of the questions here in reflects complex system issues. And this year the legislature will see a big turnover in elected officials. Can a part-time citizen legislature in Montpelier do the job needed for Vermonters? Oh, I think so, yeah. If anything, I would shrink the amount of time legislatures are in office. We don't need to grow government. We need to shrink it. And we need to build out the private sector. Okay. And so civil society is defined as that space between the individual and government. So civil society comprises all the volunteer organizations, churches, civic organizations. And that's the part of our culture and society that we need to grow. And we need to shrink the government. Okay. Thank you so much. Gabrielle. Well, so we definitely, definitely need to maintain all parts of society. If it's, you know, businesses, if it's various civil society nonprofits. I do think, though, at the core of government is that we are supposed to have a three-part system of checks and balances. We have the judiciary branch. We have the administrative or the executive branch. And then we have the legislative branch. Right now Vermont is very off kilter. We have an executive or administrative branch. And it doesn't matter if you're Democratic or Republican with like 6,000 full-time employees. And then we have a legislature that's in session, volunteer, pretty much, I mean, like no staff, January to mid-May. And, you know, this worked when we were farmers. And all we had to do was milk our cows January to May. And there were like eight kids at home. And maybe you got one piece of mail by horse like once every six weeks. It doesn't work anymore. And which is why you heard me reference all of these studies and these reports. I do think challenges are becoming more and more complex. And I do think we do need a full-time citizen legislature and not citizen. Well, I think we need a full-time legislature. And, you know, one way we could do that to make sure we're not actually raising taxes is you cut it in half. I really, if Vermont wants to continue to see the thoughtfulness and the due diligence and to make sure that we actually have a balance of power across the three government branches, while also having for-profit businesses involved, nonprofit schools, then we do need to actually have folks who can do the job and focus full-time. As a working mom, it is very, very challenging to do this, but we need all voices. And if we want diversity, we've got to reassess the model. Thank you. Well, I was just going to say that diversity, I mean, study after study after study has determined that diversity in all groups, organizations is critical to high-functioning. You get the best results when you have a diversity of views and experiences and from which to draw on. And we're not going to get that in the current form. And we've had a couple of studies come out making recommendations that would, I think, help to diversify the legislature economically, economically, racially, and experientially. But we haven't been able to do anything about it. It's tricky for legislators to suggest paying legislators more or giving them health insurance or fill in the blank. So we have come almost to the close. And I think that it would be a good time for everyone to have a closing statement. And then we will be happy to close the session tonight. Really good discussions we had tonight. And let us begin with Tom with your closing statement. Oh, sure. So Tiff just mentioned how wonderful diversity is. Basically, in Montpelier, you have a monolithic party, a monolithic ideology, progressive Democrat. It leans heavily socialist. And so if you want diversity, you will not vote for either of these two young ladies and you'd vote for me. I would preen a different perspective. I have some private sector experience. I have some social service experience. And I view the world very differently if you watch this whole interview debate tonight. I view the world very differently than these two. And so I would bring diversity and a new kind of thought into Montpelier, because right now it's really a monolithic pool and it's not going to change until you stop voting for the progressive Democrats and bring some common sense back into Montpelier. Thank you. Gabrielle, talk about your priorities when you get into office and what are you going to do, what's the most important thing for you to do? So Vermont's a small state. 650,000 people or so are the size of Boston. We need to be strategic and wise about how we want to grow and how we want to support Vermonters in being able to live in an affordable, gorgeous state and being able to have health care access and child care. We have been very, very responsible passing balanced budgets without raising taxes. And I really encourage you to check the facts and look at my website, look at TIFS websites. And we do have some session reports that you can take a look at that show you actually factually what we've been up to. And I just want to say I currently work, you know, for a for profit I work in business. I've also taught violin students in underserved schools. I've done human rights research in South Africa. I've worked on water quality. I've been a park ranger. All of this is bringing diversity. And I think I want to say one more thing, which is there have been a few comments about socialism being bad. And the reality is we have roads. We have I-89 because we've all pulled our funds to work together. We have schools because we've pulled our funds. We have Medicare. We have Social Security because we've pulled our funds. So let's remember really when we work together, we do best. We have a minute for you. I don't think I need a minute. It's been a real privilege to better understand how things work in Montpelier. There is, we have robust arguments in our committees and on the floor all the time. And there is a diversity of opinions in Montpelier. And I certainly don't see the Democratic Party as being monolithic. There are times when we need to come together. The caucus almost always votes 100%. This is my turn. Yeah, thanks. Anyway, I hope that you'll give me another two years. And we'll keep in touch as you have been. Well, thank you so much for tuning in. Thank you all for coming in tonight. Thank you for tuning in to Town Meeting TV, which is the ongoing coverage of statewide and regional candidates and volunteer items. You can find this and more forums on www.ch17.tv. And don't forget to vote on or before November 8th. This year, ballots will be mailed to all registered voters in the state and to confirm you are registered. And we will be receiving a ballot at home. So visit the Secretary of State online portal at mvp.vermont.co. Thank you so much for watching and sharing Town Meeting TV. And if you're not already, please subscribe to our Town Meeting TV YouTube channel. Thank you so much and have a good night.