Karen Lafayette of the Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council testified before the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday. Photo by Josh Larkin.
With tears of emotion, statistics, a deluge of paper and even a little theater, Vermonters with disabilities and officials representing state and local organizations painted a bleak picture at the state capitol of the impacts of proposed budget cutbacks.
The House Appropriations Committee wrapped up two days of hearings on the proposed budget for next year in sessions that took rapid-fire testimony in two-minute chunks on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning. The legislative panel is charged with writing the state budget that must address a $176 million shortfall for the next fiscal year, using the bleak fiscal blueprint issued by Gov. Peter Shumlin in January as a starting point. Shumlin has proposed $44 million in cuts to human services programs.
Designated developmental and mental health agencies are to receive $4.7 million in cuts in the governor’s budget, and including federal Medicaid funds, the reductions will total $11 million, according to Julie Tessler, executive director of the Vermont Council of Developmental and Mental Health Association. Tessler said the designated agencies have taken $15 million in cuts over the last 3 years.
While some advocates and organizations praised parts of the budget, most decried cuts that they said would harm programs that aid the homeless, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, low-income families and children, and those on state health insurance programs.
At the same time, they stressed that the cuts are a penny-wise and pound-foolish solution because a shredded social safety net will mean Vermonters postpone seeking early intervention and diagnosis in mental and health care, resulting in more costly interventions and assistance by state government programs and law enforcement officials when a crisis hits.
“I can’t stress to you enough” the dire impacts of proposed cutbacks to mental health counseling and treatment for children, said Cece Teague, on behalf of the Northeastern Family Institute, which provides mental health services through programs around the state. “I urge you: Do not cut the budget for our children in mental health,” she said.
Starkly delineating the consequences of a proposed $1.4 million cut to mental health funding proposed by Shumlin, she said for children who don’t get treatment, “The sad thing is, it often leads to suicide.”
Katina Cummings, executive director of NAMI-VT (National Alliance on Mental Illness) urged the panel to reject the mental health cutbacks, whose impact she said would be “devastating.”
“I ask you to lead on this issue affecting 30,000 Vermonters,” she said.
Alexandra Forbes, of the Vermont Psychological Association, raised concerns also noted by Lila Richardson of Vermont Legal aid about Gov. Shumlin’s proposal to merge the state’s two low-income health care programs, boosting the deductible from $500 to $1200 in the process.
Forbes warned that could have “unintended consequences” and said that many mental health clinicians are worried that Vermonters may delay needed care and early detection or treatment, leading to more costly emergency room treatment and hospitalization. Richardson echoed her concerns, saying the rise in the deductible meant many Vermonters would face a “sharp benefit cliff” that would prevent them from getting health care and early detection and treatment.
Some of the most poignant testimony came from parents and those who work with autistic or developmentally disabled Vermonters.
Anne Hopkins Gross, the mother of two children, one of who is severely autistic, broke down in tears describing the difficulties of dealing with autism in telling the panel the importance of not cutting back services to the developmentally disabled and their parents and caregivers.
Tracy Thresher, an autistic man who had his statement read for him as he sat before the committee, said “without the supports I have received from Washington County Mental Health, I would not be here today telling my story.” And Rick Duke, another client of WCMH, said through his facilitator, “The services I have received have been priceless.”
House Appropriations Chairwoman Martha Heath, left, and Mitzi Johnson, D-Grand Isle-Chittenden, take notes during Tuesday's hearings. Photo by Josh Larkin.
According to Karen Schwartz, executive director of the Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council, who also testified Wednesday, there is a $7.6 million shortfall in needed services on top of $6.5 million in cuts that have already eroded services in previous budgets. In her written statement, she argued families simply can’t “pitch in more” and argued the cuts target the “poorest of the poor.” Vermont now helps only 27 percent of the 13,145 eligible, according to Schwartz.
Wednesday’s most dramatic testimony came from Dale Hackett of Barre, who has low vision and asked the committee if he could act out his testimony standing up. Getting a slightly wary OK, he put his cane on the panel’s table, took off his hat, then his glasses, then stripped off his tie leading the panel and those in the hearing room to wonder where this was all going.
But Hackett stopped there and said he simply wanted to make a point that at some point the cuts can go too far and folks can’t function.
He said his act was a simple way to show “all these policies we are talking about that are rather abstract, these are real lives we are talking about.”
The panel’s chairwoman, Martha Heath of Westford, said despite the tightly choreographed hearing, complete with chimes to cut off speakers when their 2 minutes were up, the testimony would be “very useful” in the budget process.
“The hearings put a human face on some of the proposals,” she said.
Heath said that the panel faces a tough task trying to deal with the budget deficit and spending priorities that may differ despite a Democratic governor and a Legislature which is also controlled by Democrats.
“It’s a complex puzzle,” she said.
Permalink |
Thank you for this report, Andrew & vtdigger. “Complex” is one way to describe the problem, but it becomes simple if we pose the problem in a different way: How will the legislature raise enough revenue to take care of the basic needs of all Vermonters? Isn’t that the role of government–to defend the Constitution & the security of all citizens?
The problem becomes simple when we understand that some Vermont residents are not fairly sharing the burden of these challenging economic & political times. Many of them–the top 5% income bracket–are willing to do so. Republican Governor Snelling offered a practical model back in the 80s. The lack of will to raise broad-based revenues this year is based on “politics” and the already-debunked myth that the rich will change residency if taxed at a higher rate. Many in that tax bracket have expressed that they are willing to do their part to contribute more fairly to Vermont’s economy in these difficult times. We need job security, food security, health & education security, affordable housing, and green energy development. We can lead the way here in Vermont… people who live here do so because of our caring and community-based way of life, the beauty of the region and our basic civility.
As long as the voice of money and big business control our elections (and the public dialogue via mainstream media), government will ask the wrong question (how to stay in office) and thus come up with the wrong answer (cutting social spending). Let’s take real leadership change the dialogue in our small state.
Permalink |
“With tears of emotion, statistics, a deluge of paper and even a little theater, Vermonters with disabilities and officials representing state and local organizations painted a bleak picture at the state capitol of the impacts of proposed budget cutbacks.”
Never has a statement been truer.
Some 60% of U.S. debt matures within three years or less meaning: Interest Rate Risk is enormous.
A four percentage point increase in the U.S. 10 year Treasury bond would push U.S. government interest costs upwards of $500 billion. At a current rate of about 3.6%, a 10 year U.S. bond of 7.6% is historically within reason.
Interest rate risk and the U.S.’s need to pay higher interest costs will continue to crowd out other areas of the U.S. budget, such as Community Block Grants and Home Heating Fuel Assistance to states and municipalities.
More “tears of emotion” is indeed in our future and Montpelier has in its power to ameliorate these tears should it take note of a simple economic principle:
Economics is about the allocation of scarce resources.
Montpelier needs to find where the “slack” is in Vermont’s economy and begin to quantify the substitution or opportunity costs of its various decisions and policies.
To wit:
1) Education: Close and consolidate Vermont’s smaller schools and shrink school districts to about one per county. Increasing class size from about 10:1 to 13.5:1 (student to teacher) would produce roughly $100 million in savings, helping to offset cuts in Vermont’s Human Services division.
2) Extremist land-use and environmental regulatory policies that curtail business growth and tax revenue should be weighed against cuts in Vermont’s Human Services division, as well.
These two Vermont “third rail” untouchables, to date, have avoided the microscope of their opportunity costs and their contribution to the “tears of emotion” felt by Vermont’s Human Services division.
Unfortunately, I believe only more “tears of emotion” must prevail before such action is taken.
Those tears have left port, long ago, and will arrive on our shores sooner, rather than later.
Permalink |
The chicken little screed continues.
Please provide examples of Vermont’s “Extremist land-use and environmental regulatory policies that curtail business growth and tax revenue.” And make sure you give us actual data instead of opinions.
Permalink |
Doug, Is that the best you can do?
Permalink |
Its time for Peter Shumlin to raise taxes at home in this state and not just advocate for it at the federal leve!!!!!!!!!!!!! We need to EMBRACE SOCIALISM !!!!!!!
This administration is not living up to its campagin promise of protecting the most vulnerable!!!!!!