Editor’s note: This commentary is by Don Keelan, a certified public accountant and resident of Arlington. The piece first appeared in the Bennington Banner.
[O]n Nov. 15, Gov. Shumlin’s Secretary of Administration, Jeb Spaulding, submitted a 19-page report, “Review of the Vermont Veterans’ Home In Response to 2014 Act 179.”
In essence the report suggested a better way of funding the 130-year-old state facility. In lieu of having monies come from the state’s General Fund, it would be much better if, Spaulding wrote, “Vermont can continue to operate a Veterans Home while minimizing reliance on General Funds.”
So what does the secretary (he will be leaving office Dec. 31) suggest — “… through a lottery game or a small fee on break open tickets where proceeds would be used only for the operations of the Home.”
To the uninitiated, break open tickets are gambling tickets sold at the bar at Vermont’s social clubs. The Secretary could have at least dignified a source of funding by suggesting a “bottle drive” or an annual “bake sale.” It is quite obvious this administration cares little for its veterans and shame on them.
The administration and some in the Legislature are displeased over the fact that the Vermont Veterans’ Home has caused Montpelier to spend from $2 million to $3 million a year to balance the home’s $20 million operating budget.
For a state that has a General Fund budget of over $1billion plus ($5 billion when you consider federal funds) this subsidy is a paltry amount. Montpelier has no qualms about spending $8 million in legal fees for Washington lawyers (to defend the GMO law) or hundreds of thousands to a nationally disgraced MIT health care analyst. To meet its obligation to Vermont’s veterans, it is not important, if anything, a distraction.
Perhaps there are some in Montpelier who have concluded that the 131 souls who are in residence at the Vermont Veterans’ Home have outlived their usefulness. They are no longer productive citizens and do not contribute anything to the state. So why allocate any funds whatsoever from the state’s General Fund for their nursing, feeding and housing?
Several years ago the state of Vermont gave me a medal for my service in the Armed Forces. Sadly, I am mailing it back to the governor.
This opinion is well camouflage (masked) in the Secretary’s conclusion: “The current financial structure at the Vermont Veterans Home does not lend itself to self sustainability and requires the State to subsidize the Home’s operation with General Funds. This is not unique to the Veterans Homes in New England. Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have state run Veterans Homes that are funded with 100% General Funds.”
I wasn’t aware of the fact that our state’s prisons were on a self-sustaining basis? The General Fund allocates approximately $60,000 annually, per inmate, versus $22,000 for a resident at the home.
The Secretary’s last sentence in his report is telling and how disgraceful it is: “… that Vermont can continue to operate a successful Home for its Veterans that provides optimal care to its residents with minimal subsides from the state General Fund.”
Jeb Spaulding should be ashamed of himself for making such a remark.
Several years ago the state of Vermont gave me a medal for my service in the Armed Forces. Sadly, I am mailing it back to the governor. With such shameful actions, suggesting the funding of the Vermont Veterans’ Home with gambling tear off tickets, I have no desire to possess the Vermont veterans service medal.
The Secretary of Administration must have never heard of the definition of a military veteran: “… someone who at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to ‘The People of the United States of America, for any amount up to and including my life’.”
To be continued in Part 2 — Recommendations.
