Per Today’s Rutland Herald:
I propose a budget adjustment that includes a number of difficult changes. Eliminating the VPharm programs, which provide supplemental prescription drug assistance to Medicare beneficiaries, is particularly difficult. When the federal Medicare prescription drug benefit, part D, was instituted, my Administration and the Legislature authorized a new wrap-around benefit to allow coverage comparable to the state assistance programs that were previously in place.
[…]
For exempt employees, I have taken steps to exercise those alternatives – as well as eliminating positions – to save state money and share the sacrifice broadly. Last summer, I denied cost of living adjustments to exempt employees making over $60,000 per year. Further, as part of the most recent rescission, I ordered the same group to take a 5% reduction in pay. I am grateful that most elected officials and the Judiciary voluntarily joined me in this cost saving measure.
Unfortunately, the state’s multi-year contract precludes such options for classified employees – despite the fact that many state employees have requested such measures to avoid layoffs. This leaves a single, blunt instrument, reductions-in-force, as the only option to reduce labor expenses for remaining state employees.
Reducing our workforce in the middle of a recession is not our first choice. But the growth in payroll costs in the current economy make this difficult step a necessity. In addition to 60 positions eliminated through program changes, my recommended fiscal 2010 budget includes $17 million in General Fund savings by eliminating 600 positions within state government. While some of these positions may be cut through further vacancies and retirements, there will be reductions-in-force and an impact to state services.
I know this is difficult news that will affect the lives of many people. But given our current contract and the need to make labor costs sustainable for the long-term, a reduction in the state workforce must be part of our overall plan.
And now for the shell game:
At the other end of the spectrum, I propose increased support by 20% for early care and education to bring greater balance to our education continuum. This funding will be directed through the Department for Children and Families for increased quality to ensure that more children arrive at kindergarten ready to learn and for improved access for lower income families through the child care subsidy program.
While he might be claiming to propose this, it’s kind of odd, since at the exact same time he’s doing this, the administration has been drastically cutting child care benefits. See this piece from December 11th for some details on that.
He can pretend to have a commitment to and interest in child care, but at the same time, propose a $2,000,000 cut to human services grants. All the local resource and referral agencies which provide support for child care providers, parents receiving subsidized child care, referral services and a host of other benefits get part of their funding from those human services grants.
He can pretend to have a commitment to and an interest in early childhood education, but without an understanding of what child care is and what the purpose of it is (it is not so that they arrive at kindergarten “ready to learn”), false increases in funding provide no useful service.
He can pretend to have a commitment to and support for children, but without being willing to support reach-up and TANF, he’s basically saying he doesn’t give a damn about children.
He can pretend to support early childhood curricula but without having a sufficient number of workers to review the operating conditions of child care providers, he’s saying that their safety is irrelevant.
Jim Douglas clearly wants the cover of being able to say he’s supporting Vermont’s kids.
We can’t let him get away with that.