As to back story, the Father in a case I had is an honorably discharged veteran who was the veteran of the year in the state where he now lives. That was the year after Massachusetts terminated his parental rights to his first born child despite a stiff fight on his behalf.
He is happily married and raising two other children – with the same mother. But Massachusetts took one – Dad and Mom “got out of dodge” when she was pregnant again. They shook the dust of this state off their feet and left, forever.
I wish I could tell you that things are getting better for the working poor in this state then they were for this hard working father – but it would not be true if I did tell you that.
The name of the game here is “Not MY line item” !
So many mean-spirited, short sighted cuts will cost more later – among those short-sighted, mean-spirited cuts are the elimination of Guardian Ad Litems for Education by the Administrative Office of the Trial Courts with no prior notice on 11/14/08.
Another example of a cut that will have a cascade of costs downstream is the decision to eliminate 100 case managers by DMH, dropping services or reshuffling 3000 clients and increasing case loads by 50%. You may recall my posts on these:
and
Governor Patrick gave an excellent speech. Where is the compassion in these cuts? Who will the legal orphans “lean” on?????
If you don’t vote, and have no money, cutting you off at the knees appears not to count.
what does the story about the vet have to do with budget cuts? Did budget cuts result in his parental rights being terminated? What was the basis for the termination?
<
p>2. Before the cuts poverty is treated, or an episode of homelessness, as per se neglect. That happened in this father’s case – I am not giving the year so he cannot be even possibly identified – he has valiantly moved on…including moving away. In our state if one kid is taken, usually the next one is, too.
<
p>3. Before the cuts, the folk I see are treated as if one strike and you are out –
<
p>3. Before the cuts 800 18 year olds a year age out of foster care with no families.
<
p>4. Before the cuts, those viewed as “the undeserving poor” were stigmatized and subject to disproportionate state action leading, in part, to the “school to prison pipeline”, and a higher number of African-American and mixed race kids in foster care.
<
p>AFTER the cuts:
<
p>1. Kids in care lost, by action of the Administrative Office of the Trial Courts, educational advocacy and oversight and judges lost the information to make decisions as to WHY a truant was avoiding school, or why a teen kept getting in trouble for “disturbing school assemblies” – something kids get arrested for these days.
<
p>2. Kids aging out of foster care are more likely to be homeless than before the cuts as each local DCF office silos and protects its funds. The stories ARE coming in; the privilege of being housed is not automatic at age 18 for legal orphans, it is up to each office to deign to allow sign ins, that is voluntary custody sought by the 18 year old.
<
p>3. I am concerned that legal orphans, aging out of foster care, with diagnosed major mental illness will now find it more difficult if not impossible to get case management from DMH.
<
p>4. I am concerned that the meanness and prejudice I saw in that father’s case will not only continue to be the norm, but have yet another place to hide, with fewer benign services available. And an uncaring or prejudiced worker can always say, “Sorry no money” and just turn away more easily and blame the budget cuts. I am already seeing this, frankly.
<
p>But, perhaps the two are connected only by the pain I feel at what looks like a disproportionate impact of the cuts as they are being put into effect on the poor, those who are mentally ill, and minorities. I hope that the way the cutting and siloing has played out at the beginning can be turned around and human costs valued as much as stock values.
Let’s make believe for a money that it was Mitt Romney making these cuts. How would all the BMGers feel? What kind of vitriol would be spewed on this site? I’ve been writing forever about the partisan bias of so many people here causing people to rant about a Republican and then giving a pass to a Democrat committing the same offense (example… Liberal/Democratic partisan rants about GW spending $40+ million on his inauguration while those same people being okay with Obama’s $150+ inauguration costs). Have a sack and display some character. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the person/party!
<
p>Restore these cuts are start firing some of the high wage earners in this sate. Do you now how many state/authority workers earn 6 figures in MA?
Newsflash #1 – It sounds like the diarist IS expressing moral outrage at what is happening. She has also posted other similar diaries protesting cuts which she feels would be greatly detrimental.
<
p>Newsflash #2 – This IS a partisan blog and unlike Fox News has never pretended to be otherwise, though Democrats certainly don’t get a free pass either. I suspect people are more willing to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt than Republicans regarding cuts because of respective party attitudes to start with. It’s kind of like opening China in the 1970s. Nixon could get away with it because his anti-Communist credentials were solid, but I suspect if a Democrat tried he would have been branded a traitor by some.
Mitt Romney cuts Mental Health and an armageddon is released on him but Patrick does it and everything is ok. Isn’t that hypocrisy Christopher? Reminds me o that Fedex commercial where some guy makes a suggestions which gets canned but then the boss repeats the same suggestion and everyone applauds it. We are told $40+ million spent on an inauguration on 2005 is pretentious especially due to the economic climate in 2005 but $150+ Million now when Rome is burning is OK… and you think this is ok? There is a point in partisan support where you have to admit to being a hypocrite.
… when the politician says ‘trust me with your taxes’… it absolutely depends on who they are.
… but when a choice has to get made about who to trust, then yeah… it still depends on who they are.
Given the records of parties and individuals involved, I’ll trust Deval Patrick to make appropriate cuts over Mitt Romney anyday. Even if the actual proposals were exactly the same I’m more confident in Patrick’s motives than Romney’s. Your consistency fetish is rearing its ugly head again!
Come on, Obama’s Inaugaration is a truly historic event that is attracting an estimated 4 million and will be watched and applauded around the world today and for years to come.
<
p>Things would have been different if voters realized how historic Bush’s presidency was going to be…they would not have voted for him!
Romney announced his intention to cut waste. Apparently seniors, kids, cities, towns, the sick and needy are waste. Deval Patrick is facing the worst economic downturn in our lifetime. He acknowledges the pain his cuts may cause and asks all of us give a little, care about our neighbors. I believe he is sincere and will ask the powerful corporate interests and wealthy to give as much as the middleclass, small business, and our most vunerable.
<
p>With all the misery and destruction that Bush and Romney reaped on us, the only thing you have to complain about is Deval Patrick and Barack Obama? That sounds like hypocrisy.
But maybe he left the State, not because of budget cuts, but because he didn’t want any more of his kids taken away.
The issue is and should be about how a state cuts it’s budget and I think that is the point behind Ambers post. If we balance a budget by cutting completely services that are wanted and I dear say in this case needed. We are likely then to do more harm then good. Down sizing in this economic collapse is necessary yet downsizing that only shifts the burden is wrong. For the Conservative Dems and Repubs commenting I would ask you to consider a what if
<
p>Say we cut Police 50% across the state looking at the $2.5 Billion (approximately 10% of the state Budget) currently on the chopping block it certainly would balance the budget easy.
<
p>But at what cost?
<
p>This is my point shifting by cutting is not downsizing it playing musical chairs on the Titanic. The only critical way to downsize in this Depression is an equal cut across the board 10% on every line item. This would avoid loses to any one program and would maintain the structure of the safety net we have built for society.
<
p>Now if you are unwilling to make such cuts and you want to pick and choice who the majority supports and whom it does not then look out you may find yourself in a minority position and left out in the cold or moving to another state just to survive. Who knows?
<
p>On the other hand you could look at new revenue like casino’s or slots at racetracks or a tax on stock and hedge funds maybe a tax on Foreclosures so banks and investors will be more willing to negotiate with real meaningful restructuring. How about a penalty on banks that forecloses on property and then fails to pick up back taxes or pay current bills until after the property is resold. How about a fine for allowing a foreclosed property to o fall in disrepair a fine for not maintaining it in a similar condition to the neighborhood it is located in. Costs like this levied against a bank that merely manages a mortgage will ultimately be passed through to the investor. Actions like this may slow down the foreclosure rates and help stop the downward spiral of property values, thus putting a floor on this Depression.
<
p>Did you see the news flash about Circuit City watch for who’s next maybe you and the company you work for who knows.
<
p>As Usual Just my Opinion
I have a post up at the dreaded Red Mass Group because I quite simply couldn’t believe it when I heard it. Long story short – the Governor asked for new 9-c cuts, cutting local aid mid-year on the same day he started a new grant program for nutrituion education – state share is $250,000. Health care orgs had contributed $500,000. Why not cut back the size to 500k and restore DMR workers with that state money? Better still, rather than cut back – WHY NOT DELAY NEW PROGRAMS AT ALL WHEN YOU’RE BROKE?
<
p>Really – what does THAT say about Personality-Based politics? Is Reality-Based reallly gone forever?
There does not seem to be a plan, or any sense in how the financial decisions are being made.
<
p>I agree. When you are “broke” you don’t go to Weight Watchers and pay for meetings. Same principle.
<
p>When you are broke you don’t go to restuarants, either – you may have friends over for dinner and scrabble but you don’t throw expensive parties or go out to eat.
Another difference between Patrick and Romney/Cellucci/Swift/Weld is that Patrick is making an effort to find new revenue sources. He’s made it clear that he believes in using public spending (not just private spending) to solve problems.
<
p>The Republicans often celebrate the cuts as a means of cutting “waste, fraud and abuse”.
<
p>I wish Patrick would fight harder for progressive revenue sources. But absent success at that, he has no choice but to cut.
<
p>That said, I think spending all that money on inaugurations is a waste. And I don’t understand Patrick’s rationales for the cuts he does make.
<
p>Me too.
<
p>But I also think any smart and savvy campaign to build the public support for new revenues must include a public education campaign to illustrate and illuminate the effects of underfunding our states public structures that educate our children, protect them from harm and stablize their families.
<
p>
<
p>The Governor’s 9C cuts and the additional prospective cuts in the FY 10 budget are dictated by law because Massachusetts has to have a balanced budget and the Governor has hard evidence that revenues are declining. Period. He has no choice.
<
p>Now who fights for prgressive revenues?
<
p>You? Maybe you need to know more.
<
p>Me? I pay attention to these things, and I already know enough, and through ONE Massachusetts we are mobilizing other network members to say Enough! I’m ready to talk about taxes.
<
p>What kind of public structures do you want to protect and are you willing to pay ffor them through increased taxes? Or do you want to cut somewhere else?
The half-million DC publicity office?
<
p>The NEW anti-Big Mac grants?
<
p>We should pay more taxes to preserve them? Do you have confidence that new taxes will restore anything, or get squandered on OTHER new initiatives? Like selling off Fernald?
My concern – and disappointment – is that what I see is a callous disregard for the most vulnerable folk, like legal orphans – the teens aging out of foster care without being adopted, children with special education needs or mental health needs in the custody of the state, the profoundly retarded with multiple physical disabilities, the mentally ill, those chronically fighting addition, and those actually losing their homes.
<
p>Whether it is “lack of direction from the executive”, the reality that most in power have no experience in the trenches or with the actual working of foster care, Fernald, special education, mental health treatment for those with few resources…or no recent experience, or only a rosy view from the top.
<
p>The fact that most working parents get no sicktime and many no vacation time and in fact respond to schools and institutions who treat them according to “WE say jump – YOU say how high” does not figure in to how money is being spent, what programs are being cut, and looks either clueless or callous from where I work and live.
<
p>I have been lucky enough to work with a number of high level elected officials who actually hired people to make sure they were exposed to real people organizing their neighborhoods to fight a highway from coming through, to real tenent organizers trying to figure out why their neighborhood was burning down, to real parents whose family members were living in subhuman conditions in public instituions, to real foster moms who were sheltering court involved youngsters, to real children who never saw their incarcerated mothers.
<
p>And they were all old fashioned lunch bucket liberals who didn’t give a damn what the polls, or any “progressive” rules reformer said about anything.
And how has that translated into careful, sensitive 9C cuts now that protect these vulnerable folk? You were not specific enough to improve my sense of confidence, after the sudden death of the role of Guardian Ad Litems for education, the closing of Fernald, the treatment of kids aging out of foster care, the cutting of 100 DMR case managers. Shall I go on? Remember this post:
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>Like you, I believe those in authority on the whole “mean well” – but I consider that, for example, eliminating Guardian Ad Litems for Education – an effective services to Children In Need of Services [CHINS] kids because Administrative Office of the Trial Courts [AOTC} knew it could get away with it does not show the kind of concern at the top you discuss as generally present.
<
p>So, who, what where and when did you see the grunts from the trenches brought in as advisers? I have certainly not heard of, or experienced such involvement for myself or any non state employee serving these populations.
<
p>I have no confidence that any new taxes will be spent on restoring cuts by reparing and reforming the public structures that people like you value (like the state’s services to the retarded)UNLESS folk like you continue to organize and push, pull, nag, educate, demonstrate and make our government decsions makers publically accountable.
<
p>Now sometimes we lose our campaigns for postive change because we fail to convince our elected and appointed decision makers to do what we think is right. And all too often we lose because another group of organized folk who care just as much as we do about that public structure have convinced them that they are right.
<
p>So it goes. As my old boss Governr Frank Sargent used to say. “Did anybody tell you it was going to be easy?”
It says, “If we can’t enforce the laws we have, why make more?”
<
p>If we can’t stop misusing the taxes we collect, why collect more?
That says
<
p>If we can’t enforce a law we have there must be a reason, so get rid of it or change it or get a new law enforcement officer
<
p>If we can’t stop misusing the taxes we collect there must be a reason so expose the problem determine the necessary repair and get a new public manager.
<
p>The buck stops at your desk.
<
p>All it takes is a little civic engagement by informed politically savvy people like you.
Look their are a host of programs that we can throw snowballs at. I am sure if I sit and go through the entire budget line by line and learn every program that the state pays for I will find a few that make me laugh, make me cry and make me mad. Yet unless you rely on that program (not talking about employees taking the consumer here) how should we judge it. If the Governors and the legislature chose a program and put it into place someone is relying on that. You point to a nutrition initiative well what is the cost and how is it increasing the cost on health care and future healthcare costs? Remember the last decade we have seen health care rise at double digit % yearly and we in the last week have reports in most local papers about obesity being a increasing problem which increases the demand for long term health care costs. So is the cost of nutrition education saving 1-1.5% on health care at a cost of 1/10 that amount?
<
p>I do not have the answer to the question but the logic of the discussion is one that needs to occur. So you see cutting a program with out looking at what the point behind the program might save you a buck today but may cost you huge dollars latter.
<
p>I return to my point that yes trim do equally and not with the assumption that hey we can do with out this, this, and this and more for that, that, and that if it is one thing I hope we have all learned from Governor Romney it is that the business model does not transfer to government who’s only job is NOT PROFIT but providing opportunity.
<
p>As Usual Just my Opinions
These cuts were made unilaterally, across the board, and top down.
<
p>There were no citizens round tables to discuss and decide.
<
p>There were no “line social workers” grunt child welfare lawyers, local parents, nope.
<
p>Just Commissioners taking an 8% bite out of their own agencies where ever they choose – and other Top Dawgs like Chief Justice for Administration and Management Mulligan.
<
p>If no statute, no savvy well paid lobbyist protected something WHACK on the chopping block.
<
p>Future cost? The cutters have not a clue.
<
p>Older adolescents in this state, and young adults without a family?
<
p>Under the wheels of the bus.
<
p>And not just these folks – any group that is not organized and likely to be seen as the silent, undeserving poor?
<
p>Cut Cut Cut.
<
p>Consultants – Nah, just pay their bills. No cuts. Lobbyists? Whisk, right in the door.