Koch: Other people’s responsibility

Editor’s note: Rep. Thomas F. Koch, R/D, represents Barre Town in the Vermont House of Representatives. This column is a reprint of his Jan. 26 “Scribblings,” an occasional newsletter from the Legislature.

This week I was seen on television and quoted in print media saying that “I’m sick of dealing with other people’s irresponsibility.” And not only dealing with, but paying for!

The immediate source of my frustration was a bill before the House Judiciary Committee on which I sit to grant limited immunity from prosecution for someone who seeks medical assistance for another person suffering from a drug overdose (including alcohol, which is a “drug.”) The theory was that people who see others passed out or otherwise suffering from a drug overdose might be reluctant to call for help, for fear of being prosecuted. The immunity would also extend to a person who seeks help for himself or herself.

There are facts to support this theory and reason to believe that this bill might save lives, and I prefaced my comments by saying that I will probably support the bill. But that doesn’t relieve my sense of frustration.

Last year there were 40 deaths in Vermont caused by prescription opiates and 32 deaths caused by “other” drugs, including legal drugs such as anti-depressants, illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine, and acute alcohol poisoning. Previous years in the recent past show similar numbers, except for 2011, in which there was a spike, resulting in 52 deaths by prescription opiates and 37 deaths from “other” drugs.

Dr. Harry Chen, Vermont’s commissioner of Health, testified that death by opiate overdose results from suppression of breathing and can be easily reversed by administering an antidote known as naloxone, if treatment is begun soon enough. (Naloxone does not work, however,for alcohol poisoning.) Dr. Chen proposed an amendment to the bill that would, among other things, direct the Department of Health to provide educational materials on opioid overdose prevention, increase the timely access of drug users to treatment services, including medication-assisted treatment, and develop a statewide bystander intra-nasal naloxone distribution pilot project. In other words, distribute the antidote to users so they don’t have to worry about overdosing!

And that’s what pulled my cork. The bill is sometimes referred to as “the Good Samaritan bill,” but I think we risk giving Good Samaritans a bad name! At what point do we pass from being a Good Samaritan to being an enabler? When people make mistakes — even very serious ones — why is it always the state that has to make it right? Are there no consequences to repeated acts of irresponsibility?

I have long been an advocate for treatment and recovery from drug addiction, and I am seriously conflicted on this bill. On one hand, I want to help people recover from their addictions, and I don’t want to see needless deaths. On the other hand, my sense of right and wrong is deeply offended by yet one more example of what seems to be a policy of “no consequences for irresponsibility.”

We do it over and over.

In the last two months, we have had a rash of instances of skiers deliberately going out of bounds, getting lost, and needing to be rescued. This behavior places serious demands on the time and resources of our first responders, but our state policy is not to attempt to recover the costs of rescue operations, because to do so might discourage other lost skiers from calling for help! So is it any wonder that we continue to hear about lost skiers, and continue to send out rescue teams?

I am assured that these lost skiers are not out of bounds by accident, but that they have intentionally gone past well-marked barriers designed to keep them on the trails. That’s bad decision number one. If the second bad decision is not to call for help, I am, frankly, out of sympathy. But sending a few bills, and pursuing collection if necessary, will send a strong message: Stay on the trails!

I know that one representative is working on a bill that would allow the state to charge a ski area for the costs of rescue and permit the ski area to seek reimbursement from the wayward skier. All I see coming out of that is 50 cents more on every lift ticket, so that all of the responsible skiers pay for those who choose to disregard the rules. As I said before, I’m sick of paying for other people’s irresponsibility!

Yet another example is our Reach Up program (formerly and sometimes still known as “welfare.”) There are at least three instances in which the program encourages irresponsibility.

The welfare reform legislation that we passed in the year 2000 established Reach Up as a program designed to identify barriers that people had to getting jobs, remedy those barriers, prepare program participants for work, and allow families to move off Reach Up and attain self-sufficiency. I support that philosophy, and in many cases, the program has worked as intended. However, in other cases, the program has been abused because there are flaws in the law that invite abuse.

There are many reasons why people cannot work: inadequate education, lack of transportation, lack of child care, few skills, poor personal appearance and people skills, and the list goes on. These are all barriers to work. The Reach Up program is designed to identify each individual participant’s barriers and to prepare in a collaborative manner a “family development plan” to help eliminate those barriers over a reasonable period of time. Each participant agrees to the plan, and the plan can be modified from time to time if it appears necessary to do so. It is truly a “hand up” rather than a “handout.”

But what happens if a participant fails or flat-out refuses to comply with the plan? What happens — and I’m told that it has happened — if a participant simply says, “I don’t want to work, and I’m not going to work?” The state can then impose “sanctions” — a reduction in the participant’s cash grant. But the sanctions are “graduated” so that the reductions are small and never do get very big. Program participants have been known to say, in effect, “I’m not going to cooperate — just give me my sanction.” So we do, and the participant continues to receive the rest of the benefits of the program — the remaining cash, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

So first, if we are going to fix the Reach Up program, we need to amend the law to impose effective sanctions. The counter-argument is that by doing so, we will be hurting the children in the family. I find it difficult to believe that a person who is so uncooperative as to accept sanctions and still refuse to comply with the program is actually taking proper care of his or her children in the first place, but then that raises still another issue that I will not discuss here.

Second, I have had obstetricians tell me that they have had pregnant patients say flatly that they had to get pregnant again because their grants were otherwise going to run out! Frankly, I thought we had solved that problem in 2000, but either we did not, or there is a public perception that we did not. Either way, the Legislature needs to take action to make it clear that a Reach Up participant does not get ahead by having another child!

Finally, federal law permits states to impose time limits on participation in their welfare programs. Vermont has not done so, and as a result, a relatively small number of participants remain in Reach Up today who have been in the program for more than five years. Here, Gov. Shumlin is on the right track, and I was very happy to hear what he had to say this past Thursday as part of his annual budget address:

We face an insidious problem right now in our welfare system. It is a problem that hurts both those who desperately want to move from welfare to work and Vermont’s taxpayers who pay for our welfare programs.

It might surprise most Vermonters to learn that Vermont is the only state in the country that extends Reach Up benefits without interruption to the entire household for a lifetime. In contrast to Vermont, 46 states limit assistance to five years or fewer, and all of our neighbors have limitations either in the time period or cash benefit of their welfare programs.

Extending welfare to work benefits without interruption for a lifetime does nothing to actually encourage people to get a job. What is far more troubling is that we actually penalize Vermonters who want to earn more money and get a job because we reduce their childcare and other benefits as they begin to earn money, causing many to stay out of the workforce or quit their new job because they do better on welfare. Meanwhile, we have seen our welfare rolls grow and our state budget strain under the pressure.

There is no doubt in my mind that solving the way we deliver welfare to work benefits will improve our long-term prosperity. Vermont is a caring state. The well-being of our most vulnerable families matters to us deeply, and we know that for some the road out of poverty will be longer than for others. This administration will continue to make sure our social safety net is strong for those who are fighting against the unrelenting undertow of poverty.

“But it is neither compassionate nor prudent to continue a system in which struggling Vermonters are financially punished for getting off government assistance, finding a job, and providing for their children by going to work.

Here’s how the system should work as reflected in my budget: The State will provide benefits for a maximum of five years, by providing up to three years of initial benefits to Vermonters who need time to stabilize their lives, receive job training opportunities, and find a job. For those who need more help, the State will provide an additional two years of non-consecutive eligibility.

There is no better social program than a good paying job. We will not allow vulnerable Vermonters, such as those who are disabled, to fall through the cracks, but we will ask those who can work to get the training and support they need and get a job.

This fix is long overdue. It takes courage to say it, but say it we must: Benefits for Vermonters who are able to work must be temporary, not timeless. It is long past time for Vermont to reform our welfare system from one that discourages work to one that makes prosperity achievable for all Vermont families, including those living in poverty.”

When I heard the governor put forth this proposal, I wanted to stand and cheer! It’s no secret that Gov. Shumlin and I don’t agree on everything, but in this case, I agree strongly — every word! He is indeed correct: “This fix is long overdue.”

I have never objected to helping people who have troubles through no fault of their own. And I have frequently supported help for people whose troubles are of their own making: non-career criminals; those addicted to alcohol, opiates, or nicotine; those who made the very poor choice of dropping out of high school, and many others. But I object to being taken advantage of by those who have no regard for right and wrong and who refuse to help themselves but expect hard-working taxpayers to continue to fix the mess!

Call me Grumpy, Scrooge, or The Grinch, but I’m sick of dealing with, and paying for, other people’s irresponsibility.