Advocates: Other savings justify restoring Reach Up benefits

Reach Up

Ed Paquin, executive director of Disability Rights Vermont, discusses a chart showing the financial impacts of Reach Up cuts during a Statehouse news conference Wednesday. Photo by Jasper Craven/VTDigger

Advocates are again pressing legislators to repeal a $125-a-month cut in Reach Up benefits for certain recipients with disabilities, a cost-cutting measure in the current fiscal year’s budget.

Opponents portray the cut as a poor tax that plunges Vermont’s neediest deeper into poverty.

“If you are taking a bird’s eye view of the budget, I can see how all these cuts look the same,” said Nicole LeBlanc, advocacy director at Green Mountain Self-Advocates, during a Statehouse news conference Wednesday. “But for hundreds of mothers with disabilities and their children, this is a new financial strain on their household.”

“Once again, we have balanced our state budget on the backs of those who are least able to pay,” LeBlanc added.

The Reach Up cuts were imposed in August for adult family members who also receive Supplemental Security Income, a federal disability benefit.

The cuts have affected roughly 860 households, or 15 percent of Vermont families that receive cash benefits through Reach Up.

Ed Paquin, executive director of the group Disability Rights Vermont, pointed Wednesday to declining enrollment in Reach Up as proof the program helps lift people out of poverty. He said the $4 million net savings from reduced Reach Up rolls should be reason enough to repeal the cuts.

Advocates say the cuts — a $1,500 annual income reduction for each family — don’t take into account the many costs for families with disabilities, including specialized equipment and assistance services.

The Reach Up cuts save the state around $1.6 million a year.

Paquin said he is hopeful the midyear budget adjustment being crafted now will provide an opportunity to reverse the policy, which he said “will drive some of our state’s poorest, and least able to work citizens, further into poverty.”

A federal class action lawsuit filed last summer by Vermont Legal Aid claimed the cuts unconstitutionally discriminated against people with disabilities.

In November, the law’s constitutionality was upheld. But in his decision, U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions expressed disappointment over the policy.

“The law at issue in this case targets one of the most vulnerable populations in Vermont: disabled adults raising children in poverty,” Sessions wrote. “In an effort to achieve budgetary savings the Legislature has voted to decrease public aid to those families, resulting in what can only be further hardship for parents as they struggle to provide food and shelter for their children.”

Jasper Craven

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

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. 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. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • Peter Galbraith

    Vermont cuts $1.6 million in benefits for 860 families with disabilities and, in the same budget, gives $1.2 million to Global Foundries, a company owned by the ruler of Abu Dhabi. Note that the gift to Global Foundries was in exchange for exactly nothing. It certainly made no difference to its $1.5 billion deal with IBM or a $72 million investment made before the gift. This is wrong.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Advocates: Other savings justify restoring Reach Up benefits"