Email from Senator Tammy Mulchi 2026 General Assembly Update 2026 General Assembly Update Dear friends and neighbors, This week, I am writing because Virginia families deserve the truth about what is happening in Richmond, especially as a new administration gets underway. Governor Abigail Spanberger has barely taken office, yet her first actions already show a clear pattern: broken promises, higher costs, and partisan politics taking priority over working Virginians’ concern about the cost of living and their safety. As Democrats push forward an agenda that raises costs and weakens accountability, I have continued to stand firm against legislation that would move our Commonwealth in the wrong direction. The reality is simple: too many bills moving this session prioritize ideology and government expansion over the everyday needs of working Virginians.   That is why I oppose House Bills 1377 and 1374. From the start, both measures reflected an approach that expands government authority while offering little accountability or real benefit to Virginia families. HB 1377 and HB 1374 represent a direct challenge to the future and independence of the Virginia Military Institute. HB 1377 would establish a state task force to determine whether VMI should continue to receive public funding, effectively placing the school’s mission, structure, and long-term existence under political review. HB 1374 goes even further by dismantling VMI’s historic Board of Visitors and transferring control of the institute to another university’s governing board, stripping VMI of independent oversight and decision-making authority. Taken together, these bills would fundamentally alter one of Virginia’s most respected institutions, shifting control away from its established leadership and opening the door to ongoing political interference rather than preserving stability, tradition, and accountability. At the same time, Senate Democrats moved to block protections for power bill payers and revive failed policies that previously drove up electricity costs across the Commonwealth. They pushed Virginia back toward a failed national carbon program that will drive electricity costs up across the Commonwealth. Independent estimates show this decision could cost Virginians more than $500 million every single year—roughly $1,100 per household—while families are already stretched thin by inflation, groceries, gas, and housing costs. Businesses will feel the impact first, but those costs will inevitably land on families at the checkout counter and on their monthly utility bills. This is especially troubling because Virginians were already seeing real savings after leaving this costly program, with nearly $1 billion kept in the pockets of families under previous leadership. Governor Spanberger campaigned on lowering costs, but her early actions—backed enthusiastically by Senate Democrats—are doing the exact opposite. They are raising costs, weakening consumer protections, and calling it “affordability” while everyday Virginians pay more. Senate Republicans have been making our position clear from day one: Virginians want relief, not rhetoric. While the new administration moves quickly, it is moving in the wrong direction—pushing policies that raise costs, strain household budgets, and prioritize ideology over the everyday realities facing working families. Calling higher bills “relief” does not make them any easier to pay, and no amount of political spin can change the impact these decisions have at the kitchen table. Virginians are paying attention, and they expect leadership that delivers real affordability, not doublespeak. As Governor Spanberger’s administration takes shape, Senate Republicans will continue to stand as a firewall against policies that punish working people and centralize control at the expense of local leadership and accountability. My opposition to HB 1377 and HB 1374 reflects that commitment to balance, restraint, and responsible governance.  Laws passed in Richmond should strengthen institutions, protect taxpayers, and put families first—not political interests. I will continue to advocate for practical solutions, real savings, and a Commonwealth that works for the people who live here, not the politicians who run it. My office stands ready to help, and my staff and I encourage you to reach out whenever we can be of assistance. You can reach us at 434.374.5129 or by email at [email protected]. Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) shared some exciting news. Governor Abigail Spanberger and Lieutenant Governor Ghazala Hashmi, along with our partners, announced InternshipsVA, a new statewide program created to expand paid internship opportunities across the Commonwealth. This initiative helps employers design and launch high-quality, paid internships for students at Virginia’s colleges and universities and supports a broader statewide effort to develop, attract, and retain top talent in Virginia. InternshipsVA's vision is for all students at each of Virginia's colleges and universities to have the opportunity to participate in at least one paid internship before graduation. Help VEDP share this exciting news! Download the Engagement Guide below to promote InternshipsVA with employers in your region. The guide contains suggested social media posts and graphics, language for a newsletter, and a one-page flyer about the program. Please contact your Regional Internship Manager if you have questions about InternshipsVA or would like more information about how the program can support companies in your region. Thank you for helping Virginia build a strong and sustainable talent pipeline! DOWNLOAD INFORMATION HERE Virginia’s Paid Family Medical Leave Act Would be Among the Most Expansive and Expensive in the Country  by Derrick A. Max Governor Abigail Spanberger campaigned on a promise to sign “paid family and medical leave” when it reaches her desk. But popular vote-getting concepts often ignore the damaging impact such policies have once they are implemented. Virginia’s proposed paid family and medical leave program (SB2)/(HB1207) is a case study in how expansive design choices can turn a popular benefit idea into a long-term economic liability. SB2 appears straightforward: a state-run insurance program providing up to 12 weeks of paid leave, funded through payroll contributions. Look closer, however, and the bill reveals a combination of unusually broad eligibility, weak gating mechanisms, near-universal employer obligations, and a built-in funding escalation clause that sets the stage for rising costs and growing burdens on employers -- particularly small businesses. A Generously Designed Program, Ripe for Growing Utilization SB2 offers wage replacement at 80 percent of a worker’s average weekly wage, capped at the state average weekly wage (a generous $1,463 in 2025). That provision places it among the most generous state PFML programs nationwide. Generosity does not stop with benefit levels. SB2 defines “family member” far more broadly than do traditional leave laws, extending eligibility beyond spouses, parents, and children to now include grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, and “any individual whose close association with the covered individual is the equivalent of a family relationship.” That open-ended standard is inherently subjective and difficult to administer and is one of the broadest definitions being used. SB2 also expands paid leave to include “safety services,” allowing paid time off for a wide range of activities related to domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, or harassment, including relocation, legal proceedings, counseling, and security measures. Because of the complexity of determining eligible safety incidents, SB2 allows certification through a signed statement by the worker, reducing administrative friction, but increasing potential abuse. Add to this the fact that SB2 includes military-related leave tied to deployment and care for a service member -- and it appears to cover nearly every conceivable leave scenario. Near Instant Qualification for Coverage SB2 has no meaningful tenure requirement before allowing coverage. Unlike the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which requires 12 months of tenure and 1,250 hours of service with an employer, SB2 contains no meaningful work-tenure requirement. Eligibility is largely tied to prior covered earnings and explicitly contemplates benefit calculations for workers employed for less than a year. This makes SB2 more permissive than most other state programs. New York requires 26 consecutive weeks (or 175 days) with an employer before paid family leave can be used. Delaware requires 12 months and 1,250 hours. Even states that rely on earnings-based eligibility generally require a measurable base-period work history. SB2’s approach allows paid leave to be accessed effectively from the first day of employment, shifting risk onto employers who may face extended absences before they have recouped the cost of hiring and training a worker. Near-Universal Employer Participation Obligations Under SB2 employers with 10 or fewer employees are not required to pay the employer share of payroll contributions. But even the smallest firms must withhold employee contributions, remit payments, provide notices, maintain records, coordinate leave, and guarantee job restoration. Unlike some states that fully exempt very small employers, SB2 spreads compliance obligations across firms both big and small. The Hidden Cost SB2 Doesn’t Pay: Replacement Labor The debate over paid leave ignores the real, off-the-books costs employers face when workers are absent. Supporters act as though the lost productivity of an employee on leave has no cost. While SB2 covers wage replacement, it does not pay for the employer’s cost of overtime, temporary staffing, training, or lost productivity to cover the work of an employee on leave. In practice, employers cover absences in two ways: overtime for current staff (paying time and a half) or temporary replacements. Studies of absence management consistently find that these indirect costs can exceed the direct cost of payroll contributions, especially for small firms. SB2 does nothing to mitigate these realities. A Built-In Escalation Clause Perhaps the most consequential difference between SB2 and Virginia’s prior paid leave proposal, House Bill 2531 (passed and vetoed in 2025 by Governor Youngkin) is SB2’s explicit funding escalation mechanism. HB2531 did not codify a specific solvency threshold requiring automatic rate adjustments. SB2, however, directs the Virginia Employment Commission to adjust contribution rates to ensure the trust fund maintains a minimum projected balance of 40 percent -- effectively guaranteeing that if utilization exceeds projections, payroll taxes will rise (and benefits will not be cut). Out-of-control costs are not hypothetical. Other states offer cautionary examples. Washington state’s PFML program has faced repeated solvency concerns as utilization grew faster than expected, forcing lawmakers to raise premiums and consider general-fund backstops. Minnesota’s just launched program has already drawn scrutiny over cost projections and likely tax increases. Broad programs like those outlined in Virginia’s SB2 tend to cost much more over time than initially promised. Learning the Wrong Lessons from Other States Governor Spanberger argued that Virginia should “catch up” with states that already have paid leave but fails to learn the cautionary lessons those state plans reveal. Programs with broader leave definitions, higher replacement rates, weak eligibility gates, and expansive benefit structures are more likely to experience funding issues and cost significantly more over time. Virginia’s own prior PFML studies have shown that program design -- who pays, who qualifies, how benefits are calculated -- has material effects on employment, wages, and economic output. SB2 largely ignores those cautions. Conclusion SB2 is a large, permanent expansion of state-mandated employment benefits, financed through payroll taxes and structured to grow. This bill is nothing short of a business killer. Governor Spanberger should be cautious before committing to a program whose full costs -- especially to small businesses and workers’ wages -- are likely to emerge only after it is too late to reverse course. Please use your cell phone camera and follow the QR code below to follow me on Instagram! A new tool to communicate with citizens across the 9th Senate District. Email Us P.O. Box 145, Clarksville, VA 23927 (434) 374 5129 Share This Email Share This Email Share This Email Paid for and Authorized by Mulchi 4 Senate Senator Tammy Mulchi | P.O. Box 145 | Clarksville, VA 23927 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice