The initial shock has begun to wear off since Gov. Peter Shumlin released his budget on Tuesday, and groups that will be affected by the cuts he outlined are beginning to review the details and assess the damage.
Morgan W. Brown, a blogger and mental health activist summed up the impact of the $44 million hit to human services this way: “Douglas 2.0.”
Emerson Lynn, the editor of the St. Albans Messenger, delivered the same message in an op-ed that appeared on Vermont Tiger. Lynn dubbed the new governor’s speech “Douglasesque.”
For some constituencies, the reductions in funding do amount to more of the same. The “designated agencies,” which provide services for mentally ill and developmentally disabled Vermonters, were a target for years under the Douglas administration.
But Shumlin added his own creative twist to the state’s repertoire of budget cutting techniques in order to resolve the staggering $176 million shortfall in fiscal year 2012.
A case in point? The “extraction” tax on dentists. Shumlin has proposed a 3 percent “provider tax” on dental services. Peter Taylor, the head of the Vermont State Dental Society, said he was blindsided by the move. Unlike his compatriots in mental health who sat down with the governor in advance of Tuesday, Taylor said he wasn’t told about the new “revenue enhancements” until 20 minutes before the budget address.
The “assessment,” which the Shumlin administration estimates could raise $6 million, is the only one of its type aimed at medical practitioners. The other “provider taxes” are directed at hospitals, home health agencies and insurers. Dentists who take more Medicaid patients could earn about $3.2 million of the money back. The additional expense, Taylor said, will be passed on to patients.
“The tax is in essence a tax on the average Vermonter seeking dental care,” Taylor said. About 80 percent of Medicaid patients are treated in private practices – more than anywhere else in the country, he said. Private practitioners tend to accept fewer Medicaid patients because there is a benefit cap of $495 on adults. (In 1989, he said, the cap was $500.)
Taylor was reached by cell phone on a dentist recruitment expedition to Boston. “We’re trying to attract more dentists to Vermont, and the timing isn’t helpful,” Taylor said.
The timing is also unfortunate for another program affecting “high needs” elderly, that is, Vermonters who are on the verge of needing nursing home care. Until recently, there was a freeze on the Choices for Care program, and fewer people were eligible for services (slots for about 161 Vermonters disappeared from 2008 to 2010, according to a chart from the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living).
Though the Shumlin administration has eliminated the freeze, officials want to cut about $2 million worth of General Fund support for services to seniors. In so doing, the state would lose about $3 million in federal matching funds. In all, seniors would be out $5 million worth of services, according to Michael Sirotkin, a partner in Sirotkin & Necrason, a lobbying firm that represents the Community of Vermont Elders.
The cuts include a $1 million General Fund reduction in services for seniors who are having trouble taking care of household chores. The idea is that if the state pays for assistance, such as grocery shopping, snow shoveling and housecleaning, elderly Vermonters will be able to stay in their homes longer. Under Shumlin’s plan those services will be cut in half. Another $1 million in General Fund money would be cut from respite programs for families.
Both programs help the state save money. Nursing home stays cost about $70,000 a year. Home-based services, on the other hand, which includes some light nursing care, cost about $30,000 a year.
Sirotkin says on average the cuts amount to about $2,000 a year in services to Vermonters in the program, many of whom live alone on incomes of $1,000 per month. About 2,500 elderly residents of the state rely on Choices for Care.
“All the fears we have had about statements of protecting the most vulnerable citizens turning into platitudes, are now being realized,” Sirotkin wrote in an e-mail. “Seniors and the disabled on our low-income long term care program are our most vulnerable citizens — needing assistance with such things as toileting, bathing, dressing and feeding themselves. What is being proposed in the new budget are dramatic, if not draconian, cuts to the supportive services that allow our seniors and persons with disabilities to remain in their homes and communities and not be forced into nursing homes.”
Sirotkin said the proposed cuts fly “straight in the face of the Choices for Care Waiver itself.” He said the point of the program was to provide elderly Vermonters a choice to stay at home if they wanted to. He said the “short sightedness” of the proposal will “clearly result in more folks needing of institutional care.”
“Clearly the promises made under this program by the legislature and past Administrations to reinvest savings from reduced nursing home admissions back in the community has been dishonored,” Sirotkin wrote. “The program has withered over the past few years with suspensions of new admissions to half the program. The cuts now being proposed add insult to injury.”
The Battle for the Wilderness is over
A group of concerned citizens in Vermont and Virginia – including Rep. Peter Welch and historian Howard Coffin — have routed Wal-Mart Corporation from the most important battlefield of the Civil War for Vermonters: The Wilderness.
In 2009, Wal-Mart received a building permit for a 138,000 square foot store on the site in Locust Grove, Va. Later that year, the National Historic Preservation Trust sued, and Welch, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, actor Robert Duvall, filmmaker Ken Burns and historian David McCullough pledged to take whatever steps necessary to prevent Wal-Mart from erecting a megastore on the battlefield.
On Wednesday, much to Coffin’s evident shock and relief, Wal-Mart withdrew its application to build on the Wilderness Battlefield. The lawsuit was scheduled to go to court this week.
The Vermont Legislature passed a resolution in 2009 asking Wal-Mart not to build the store, and that, Coffin said, “caused quite a stir in Virginia.”
“With the help of the Vermont Legislature, we have stopped this,” Coffin said.
It was in the Wilderness that Vermonters showed their mettle and helped to turn the tide of the Civil War in the first clash between Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. The three-day battle was intense. At one point, while the two armies were engaged in hand-to-hand combat, the field caught fire and burned soldiers alive. By the time the battle ended, two-thirds of the “Old Vermont Brigade” were casualties. Union forces went on to win the war.
“The Wilderness Battlefield is a sacred site for Vermonters, Texans and all Americans,” Welch said in a statement. “The battlefield marks the sacrifice of so many soldiers, whose memory we must cherish. We appreciate Wal-Mart’s decision to build elsewhere and we applaud the leadership and advocacy of those who fought to preserve this important national landmark.”
Former U.S. Sen. James Jeffords obtained money from Congress to preserve part of the battlefield site. The store would have been situated near a monument donated by the State of Vermont.
Gov. Peter Shumlin applauded Wal-Mart’s decision. “Vermont paid a terrible toll on that site on May 5 and 6, 1864, losing so many of our young men in the Battle of the Wilderness,” Shumlin said. “Our brave soldiers gave their lives to keep the country together and end slavery. It would have been an awful loss to have that battlefield covered in the shadow of a Wal-Mart store.”
Spay and neuter month, really?
In his first proclamation, Shumlin will declare February “Spay and Neuter” month. Seriously. The press avail will include furry friends — this is literally a dog (minus pony) show (a la Gov. Jim Douglas), and it’s pitched as a photo-op.
Here’s a copy of the proclamation:
State of Vermont
Executive Department
A ProclamationWHEREAS, pets provide companionship to more than 71 million households in the United States; and
WHEREAS, humane societies and animal shelters have to euthanize more than four million dogs, cats, rabbits and other animals each year, due to a lack of critical resources and public awareness; and
WHEREAS, spaying and neutering has been shown to dramatically reduce the overpopulation of stray pets, and is a wise investment for pet owners; and
WHEREAS, the overpopulation of stray pets costs taxpayers millions of dollars annually through animal service programs aimed at coping with the abundance of stray pets; and
WHEREAS, veterinarians, national and local animal protection organizations, and private citizens worked together to ensure the spaying or neutering of over 44,000 pets nationally through Spay Day 2010;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Peter Shumlin, Governor, do hereby proclaim February 2011 asSPAY AND NEUTER MONTH
in Vermont, and encourage Vermonters to observe this tradition by having their own pets spayed or neutered.
