Rainy Days for Reach Up Program

Is it raining yet? Well, that may all depend on who you are. We all feel the economic uncertainty of this recession. But, the storm of the recession affects us differently depending on our ability to weather it. Those in the top income brackets see the clouds and feel a steady drizzle. Not pleasant, but certainly not life-threatening. Middle-income earners are caught in a heavy rain without an umbrella and they're soaked. Low-income workers and those reliant on public assistance, however, are soaked through, chilled to the bone, and near drowning with no prospect of help on the way. It's time to use the rainy day fund and other revenue sources to help balance the budget and aid those most in need of assistance.

The Douglas administration recently proposed cutting more than $53 million from the budget of the Agency of Human Services, affecting thousands of Vermonters who rely on its services. Six million dollars in cuts alone come from the Department for Children and Families (DCF). A large share of that comes out of the pockets of those with the least: families on welfare, or "Reach Up." For many low-income Vermont families, every day is a rainy day involving a scramble to find enough money to just get by. Using the rainy day fund now would avoid detrimental cuts to Vermont families in need and provide immediate stimulus to the economy because the money does not need to be raised and would be spent immediately.

Reach Up recipients have a hard time finding work. For example, one recent DCF annual report showed a 28 percent increase in barriers (lack of transportation, housing, etc.) to employment over a one-year period. A proposed 20 percent cut to support services that help eliminate those barriers means more families will find it difficult to move from welfare to work. That could cost the state more in the long run. The state should be looking for ways to preserve funding to overcome barriers to employment.

The administration has proposed counting almost 1,100 families' disability payments from SSI against them for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits. Recently, other states like Massachusetts have considered and rejected eliminating the SSI disregard. Reach Up households that have disabled family members face more challenges and therefore are least equipped to absorb additional cuts, or worse, be deemed ineligible because of their receipt of SSI.

Elimination of innovative programs like Reach Ahead (a modest $50-$100 per month in food support for families leaving Reach Up) will be a hardship to those families who go without, and will ensure Vermont has a harder time meeting its federal work participation requirements because those recipients are counted as part of our work participation rate. If Vermont continues to fall short of federal mandates, we run the risk of penalties that will prove costly to the state.

Other states are beginning to question the wisdom of simply trying to cut their way out of budget crisis, and are instead finding ways to equitably address revenue and preserve essential programs and services. Oregon citizens, for example, just voted overwhelmingly to increase income and corporate taxes on those with the greatest ability to pay. We should likewise question whether budget cuts that disproportionately affect low-income people are the only way to resolve our budget crisis.

The Reach Up program is just one important program of many that should not fall prey to a "cut at all costs" mentality. Vermont must not abandon its commitment to those in need. We are fortunate to have a rainy day fund containing $60 million. We should use it. Immediately. After that we should put everything on the table with fairness and sustainability as cornerstones of any budget solution. Considering sources of new revenue, rainy day funds and budget cuts together is a balanced approach to solving our budget woes. And it would provide a little shelter from the storm for all Vermonters.

Originally published in the Burlington Free Press and Times Argus.