Spokane7
39°Quick links: 2012 graduating seniors • Summer camp guide • Jobs: The Road Ahead • Prep sports • News quiz
This morning, legislative budget writers are in the second of three days of hearings on the Department of Health & Welfare budget, with today’s focus on mental health and substance abuse services, psychiatric hospitalization, child welfare and developmental disabilities - all areas where budget cuts can have a harsh impact on vulnerable people. At the end of yesterday’s hearing, which focused on Medicaid, Sen. Shawn Keough, ,R-Sandpoint, said, “They serve the neediest population of Idahoans, and it’s clear that they’re struggling to do that in some instances and that it will remain a challenge with the economic downturn.” Keough said she’s hoping to ensure that as many resources as possible go “down to the street level” where they’re needed most. 
Rep. Shirley Ringo, D-Moscow, said, “I’m extremely concerned for providing adequate services for the vulnerable part of our population.” She spoke out yesterday about lawmakers “acting as if the only way is to make cuts,” and said, “I really think we need to look at the revenue side.” When Idahoans understand the specific impacts of cuts on the state’s ill, poor and disabled, she said, “I have a hard time thinking that they’ll be acceptable to folks.” But JFAC Co-Chair Dean Cameron, R-Rupert, said he doesn’t see tax increases as an option - and certainly not for the budget committee, whose task is to balance the state budget. Tomorrow, the joint committee will examine budget situations for welfare, public health and the medically indigent.
Among today’s discussions: Holdbacks at the two state mental hospitals are particularly difficult to accomplish, because reductions in hospital staffing can result in both public safety and accreditation problems; personnel makes up 80 percent of the hospitals’ budgets. “Any proposed reductions in personnel hit the hospitals very hard,” H&W Administrator Kathleen Allyn told lawmakers. Among savings so far: State Hospital North closed its lab, and now contracts out for lab work, laying off one medical technologist. State Hospital South laid off two non-direct care staff, is holding several more positions vacant, and will furlough non-direct care staffers.
In the state substance abuse treatment and prevention program, two state employees have been laid off. In adult mental health, five have been laid off, temporary positions eliminated, and 10 vacancies held open. In children’s mental health, there have been two layoffs and four vacancies held open.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
Onegovtexpert on January 20 at 9:38 a.m.
It’s always the same…some groups argue they need State money more than some other groups or programs. Unfortunately, these are policy questions the legislators must answer whenever there are scare resources.
But what if Idaho didn’t have to make these cuts at all? Shouldn’t that objective be a key focus of our legislators? Hmm, haven’t heard about nay ideas from them.
Here’s why and how to do it:
Cities and counties (read independent taxing districts) are all flush with cash, having increased tax collections to provide more funds for their personnel/programs when the economy was booming. Over the last few years, Ada County reduced its budget only about 1% (2.3M out of 192M)to mollify the taxpayers. Yet the county salaries are still climbing and are about 20-30% higher than their state counterparts. And Boise City is said to be levying at the maximum 3% this year despite the downturn in property values…and it’s budget is scheduled to increase.
Does this sound remotely reasonable when we’re in a recession and the State is under such financial pressure?
Our legislators should simply reduce the revenue sharing money that’s given to local taxing districts…the amount given to them was somewhere around 160M last year.
Why?
The ‘locals’ have shown they don’t really need it (except to increase salaries) and the State programs do need it. Simple logic and a simple decision…but wait for the howing when the local gub-mints start telling their citizens that ‘taxes will have to go up to meet the shortfall due to decreased state revenue sharing monies”. Yes, a shortfall that should have been there all along!
Jefferson on January 20 at 2:15 p.m.
I always find it ironic when I look at the pictures, especially during discussions about cutting funding for the most needy.
$1000 suits, marble pillers, 40 foot ceilings, huge oak desks, Victorian architecture. Senators and congressmen with 5 offices around the state $2000 chairs. All of which get redesigned every couple years. etc.
And I wonder, how much sympathy can these “disconnected from the people and real life” politicians have with the “most vulnerable” people they are hurting, how little they understand how new taxes will effect us. These decisions affect them, not at all.