Federal program cuts could last a decade

House Appropriations Chairwoman Martha Heath, left, and Mitzi Johnson, D-Grand Isle-Chittenden, take notes during Tuesday's hearings. Photo by Josh Larkin.

House Appropriations Chairwoman Martha Heath, left, and Mitzi Johnson, D-Grand Isle-Chittenden, take notes during Tuesday’s hearings. Photo by Josh Larkin.

The state’s economy is creeping out of the Great Recession in slow growth mode, slightly ahead of the rest of the country, but that recent soft glow in the tax revenue picture is about to dim.

Budget-writers who have been attempting to get state government in trim over the last five years will not get a reprieve from axe-wielding any time soon. New programs based on federal funding will be out of the question, and the state’s current heavy reliance on greenbacks from D.C. will likely mean much deeper cuts to existing programs over the next 10 years.

That’s because ongoing federal cuts to an array of state programs and services are projected to last at least a decade, and the state doesn’t have the funds to make up the difference, state officials say. As it is, lawmakers and Gov. Peter Shumlin used $50 million in one-time funds to balance the 2014 budget. That gap will be folded into next year’s budget at a time when revenues continue to lag behind pre-recession levels.

“There’s no way there’s going to be enough money to backfill federal program cuts,” Sue Zeller, deputy commissioner of the Department of Finance and Management, said. “It’s going to be a tough year because of that.”

A 16-page report from the Vermont Joint Fiscal Office released last month shows that Vermont could see tens of millions of dollars in annual program reductions in a broad swath of public services — everything from transportation funding to food stamps, law enforcement and the justice system, education, anti-poverty programs, scientific research, energy investments, environmental protection, agricultural programs, humanities programs and veterans services.

Steve Klein, the director of the Joint Fiscal Office, says the report is meant to be a cautionary, preliminary assessment, not a definitive rundown on how the cuts will affect state government. “It’s not something you can build a budget on,” Klein said. But it sends a message, he said, that federal funds will no longer be available to solve state problems.

“What we’re seeing in the reduction in federal funds today is something we’re going to be living with for 10 years or more,” Klein said.

How are the state’s budget-writers planning for a hodgepodge of yet-to-be released reduction amounts? They aren’t. Without more detail there isn’t much they can do. But one thing is certain: For the foreseeable future, Klein says, the Legislature and the governor’s office will have to be more “cautious about building programs that rely on future federal funding.”

Over the past five years, Vermont’s budget-writers have become increasingly reliant on federal funds. In 2009, the state balanced its books with $1.355 billion from Washington; in 2014, that amount climbed to $1.851 billion.

Though there is uncertainty about just how much the feds will cut and in which programs, an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office breaks down the cuts by category and shows the difference between the House and Senate proposals for 2014. (Meanwhile, the sequester cuts for 2013 have not yet been fully felt, the JFO reports.)

Here are a few of the big-ticket items that could be cut in Vermont:

  • Depending on how the reauthorization of the transportation budget pans out, the state stands to lose between $30 million and $62 million in 2015, analysts project.
  • The federal “global commitment” waiver for funding of non-Medicaid health care related expenditures is worth $50 million to $60 million. If the waiver is extended, it will likely be level-funded or lowered. The state’s regional mental health system will increase demand for this source of federal funding.
  • The state’s health care exchange has been largely funded by the federal government. Even without cuts, the state is expected to come up with $18 million to $20 million in support for the program in future years.
  • The Low Income Heating Assistance Program and the state foodstamps program will both likely be reduced.
  • Furloughs for federal employees may continue.
  • Programs like the Vermont Humanities Council could see federal grants shrink dramatically.
  • Student loan interest rate supports will be diminished.

For years, the state has received more money for transportation from the federal government than it contributed. That state of affairs will likely change. Sue Minter, deputy secretary of the Agency of Transportation, says the new transportation reauthorization bill proposal for 2015 favors large states over small ones like Vermont. Minter also worries about the stability of the federal highway trust fund which is losing money at an alarming rate because federal gas tax revenues have been dropping.

Both factors could have an impact on the state’s ability to keep bridge reconstruction and other projects in the pipeline, she said.

“We have a lot of risk out there in the language of the reauthorization bill,” Minter said. “It’s possible they won’t spend money for transportation at the level they do now. We use federal matches for almost all of the big projects going on out there. For us, the best case scenario is for the Continuing Resolution to continue, for the federal government to spend at level they are now. We’re hoping that’s where it comes out.”

The House and Senate split

David Carle, spokesman for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., says the JFO report “illustrates that federal spending has a significant role in Vermont’s economy and Vermont’s communities, that federal spending is declining, and that sequestration makes it worse.”

“Before sequestration, Congress and the President already acted to reduce the debt by $2.5 trillion, with the vast majority of those savings coming from spending cuts,” Carle wrote in an email. “That is why Senator Leahy voted for a budget plan in March to replace sequestration and start moving forward with an appropriations process to fund the government at adequate levels and to set sensible priorities for the coming year, instead of the mindless autopilot mechanism of sequestration.”

With the exception of funding for Veterans Affairs, the U.S. House budget proposal for fiscal year 2014 includes $76 billion in cuts that average about 7.7 percent across 12 key areas. The House, which is dominated by Republicans, wants to cut transportation and housing programs by 15 percent; environmental protection by 18.6 percent and human services by 22 percent.

The U.S. Senate, which is almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, is proposing $15 billion in reductions, or average cuts of about 1.4 percent in fiscal year 2014.

Social services for the elderly are projected to squeeze the federal budget as a result of Baby Boomer retirements and ongoing raids of the Social Security Trust Fund and dramatic growth in health care costs. Over the next decade, Medicare spending is projected to represent an ever-larger wedge of the pie. Health care spending is projected to grow from 5.7 percent of gross domestic product in 2011 to 17.2 percent in 2085.

Carle says Leahy is disappointed that a minority in the Senate, who favor cutting government programs for the needy, “would rather see sequestration continue than close tax loopholes that only benefit the wealthy and that pad growing corporate profits.” Leahy hopes Republicans and Democrats “can come together in goodwill to solve this self-inflicted problem.”

Anne Galloway

Leave a Reply

17 Comments on "Federal program cuts could last a decade"

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
David Schoales
2 years 8 months ago

The state, towns, and schools will have to get creative about finding revenue. Developing public utilities through large private/public solar arrays is one way Brattleboro Schools and Town are exploring. Wood chip and pellet and methane heating and energy conservation also save money and can generate revenue. If we are to weather this crisis and avoid another when the next financial bubble bursts, we have to look to local economic growth and sustainability.

Kathy Callaghan
2 years 8 months ago

David, good points; I agree. But how can the state, towns and schools get creative enough to bear the huge financial cost of “single payer”, especially when the next financial bubble bursts? Unless I’m missing something huge in the equation, it does not seem possible. What are your thoughts about revenues for this?

Ron Pulcer
2 years 8 months ago

David,

Regarding “creative” ways for towns to get revenue, as far as community solar projects, there have been some recent complaints from some residents in Rutland Town. As with large-scale wind projects, there are always going to be some who think these projects spoil the view from their properties.

Community solar: model for the future
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130801/OPINION04/708019977/0/SEARCH?template=printart

Solar Farm concerns raised in the town
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130802/NEWS01/708029957/0/SEARCH?template=printart

Solar rolling over town rights
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130805/OPINION02/708059984/0/SEARCH?template=printart

Jim Barrett
2 years 8 months ago

I’m not sure you are aware of the restrictions that are placed on anyone who dares suggest doing something in this state. From stores to churches the word from town after town is NO, everything is bad. Each and every town has strong comrades who will fight to stop anything under the guise of saving us from some evil.

Kathy Callaghan
2 years 8 months ago

“The state’s health care exchange has been largely funded by the federal government. Even without cuts, the state is expected to come up with $18 million to $20 million in support for the program in future years.” This really IS a nightmare. I hope that this was not news to the Shumlin Administration and Legislature, who persist in moving ahead with a “single payer” system that will rely heavily on Federal funds, both initially and in the future. On the one hand, if they already knew about this, why keep Vermont going on this financially reckless path? On the other… Read more »

David Usher
2 years 8 months ago

“A 16-page report from the Vermont Joint Fiscal Office released last month shows that Vermont could see tens of millions of dollars in annual program reductions in a broad swath of public services — everything from transportation funding to food stamps, law enforcement and the justice system, education, anti-poverty programs, scientific research, energy investments, environmental protection, agricultural programs, humanities programs and veterans services.” I view the above as good news. Without financial pressures, the SYSTEM, both state and federal will continue to bloat. Flowing more and more money to governments as a % of the economy is foolhardy. Creative revenue… Read more »

rosemarie jackowski
2 years 8 months ago

Did I understand this? The poor will no longer be able to survive in Vermont, but our elected leaders still support the most expensive weapon system in human history.

The poor will die
So the F-35 can fly

NICOLE LEBLANC
2 years 8 months ago

Time to raise 4 billion in taxes on the wealthy! NO more budget cuts in human services! We need tax hikes on the wealthy Corporations!!!!!!!!!!! GREED MUST END

keith stern
2 years 8 months ago

Sure that’s a great plan so other corporations do the same as GE and Ingersall Rand that use accounting tricks to avoid US taxes.
How about responsible government instead where between 1 and 2 hundred million dollars are wasted in duplication of services or military spending in line with military threat from other countries to eliminated pensions for elected officials to fiscal restraint across the board?

Joe Randazzo
2 years 8 months ago

Less federal money for education, healthcare, transportation and food doesn’t bother me at all. I have the satisfaction of knowing that Amerika is building several thousand F35 jet fighters at a cost of 170 million dollars a plane. That makes me feel very warm, fuzzy, and proud. HOT DAMN, WE’RE NUMBER ONE!!!

rosemarie jackowski
2 years 8 months ago

I bet if we applied to Cuba for aid, they would help us. I am serious. After Hurricane Katrina, Cuba offered to send doctors to render free medical care. The US government rejected the offer.

Joe Fatabuichi
2 years 8 months ago

Given the litigious nature of our population, I’m not surprised the US government declined following Hurricane Katrina. Perhaps we could hire them here to care for only ‘Bronze Plan’ folks and see how that works out.

keith stern
2 years 8 months ago

Maybe it’s time to vote in fiscally responsible officials who understand that money isn’t an endless supply that can be spent freely.

Jim Barrett
2 years 8 months ago

Too late my friend, we are fast becoming a communist state where government will own everything and you are considered as passing thru!

keith stern
2 years 8 months ago

I have made a couple of idea proposals to the VT Republican Party which were ignored so I agree that all is lost here.

Jim Barrett
2 years 8 months ago

Don’t worry folks, the taxes will be raised to cover the loss in federal revenue….no problem at all in Vermont. We are here to help the poor, the underprivileged, the welfare bums, the people who the state thinks we should support without question. We are now an arm of the government charities, dictated by and for the government. It takes a village!!!!!!!

keith stern
2 years 8 months ago

Thank God for big brother.

wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Federal program cuts could last a decade"