26 replies to this topic

[rudolpho of pensacola]

please consider the peoples with more needs than your own...

The 7th Special Session of Arizona's legislature concluded with additional budget cuts that will affect families of children with special needs. The legislature reduced spending by taking actions that include those listed below, and more cuts will be automatically triggered if the temporary sales tax fails to pass in May. The bills have been signed by the governor. This is a brief summary of notable impacts.
A presentation with more detail is available on the DES website at:
My link

DES will see an additional $50.5 million in reductions if the sales tax increase is not passed by voters on May 18, 2010.

First Things First (Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Initiative) will be sent back to voters, with the Arizona legislature asking that it be abolished. Voters passed this measure in 2006 to support services for the health and education of young children. First Things First has offered to lend the state $300 million at no interest. If the ballot measure passes in November, $385 million will be taken from First Things First and the early childhood program will be eliminated.

DDD Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) reduced $1.9 million in 2010 and $3.7 million next year. This eliminates state-only services (except foster care, residential supports, and early intervention) for 300 children and 400 adults who do not have ALTCS eligibility

A rate structure for foster children in the DDD state-only program will be implemented.

Reimbursement for habilitation with a music component will be reduced to the regular habilitation rate (instead of the enhanced rate paid previously).

Starting July 1, 2010, increase SSI billing for state-only services to 88 % from 70 %, consistent with Arizona Long Term Care (ALTCS) practices
DDD group home consolidation will combine residents of facilities with vacancies into fewer facilities

$18 million cut for KidsCare eliminates health care coverage for approximately 38,000 Arizona children

AHCCCS will be making several changes to the acute care adult benefit package as authorized by the enacted budget. AHCCCS is authorized to reduce provider rates by 5%-and another 10% if the sales tax increase is not passed by voters on May 18, 2010.

Salary cuts for state employees of 2.75%- reduction in performance pay. With mandatory furlough (days off without pay) for state employees, the total salary reduction for state employees is 5%.

[danielle]

I am actually employed through a grant from First Things First. I've been allowed to see the great work that is being done in our communities and for Arizona kids through this group and with this money. I really hope either the legislature agrees to borrow the money or that the voters are smart enough to vote for FTF to continue. Thanks for posting this!

[bethvg82]

The food bank I volunteer at has been providing baby food and formula to needy families with young children through a First Things First grant. When the money from this year's grant runs out they will not be able to provide this additional service. I think this is a time when we need to increase funding to safety net programs like these, not decrease it.

[rudolpho of pensacola]

3 years ago it was a huge undertaking to get my daughter approved for ALTCS.
i couldnt imagine what parents are going through now just trying to get into the system for assistance.
my daughter has already experienced drastic cuts in therapy hours. im terrified of whats to come.
these kids need everyones help.

[capharnaum]

the DDD cuts will affect my daughter's services in a huge way.
pretty bummed about these cuts, we're already losing music therapy because it's
not recognized by the state as a "real" therapy.
next up speech therapy, occupational therapy, respite maybe HAB and kindergarten half days instead of full days.
thanks arizona as if i didn't hate living in you enough already.

[rudolpho of pensacola]

the ddd is now offering certified music therapists
(we are talking about professionals, peoples who have gone through 4-6 years of college for this)
the wages of habilitators which make $8-$12 an hour. and the ddd is telling families that it is
the center which provides the music therapists decision to no longer provide music therapy, not
the ddd. my daughter lost her music therapy 2 months ago. the ddd will not allow anyone to give
music therapy whom does not have anything less than a bachelors in MT. kind of insult to injury.

Habilitation communication is gone does not exist anymore.
my daughters weekly habilitation hours have been cut down by 10.
ive been trying to get my daughter approved for at least 2 hours
of speech per week, ddd just denied stating all she needs is 1 hour.

i personly think that OT will be next, do to the sensory debate. also i think that kids just getting
diagnosed are going to have a much much harder time getting any state help at all.

[illya]

yes. please vote yes on prop 100 in may.

here is the case, pure and simple:
Arizona's revenues are expected to be quite low this year and next, and as a result, major popular services have been either reduced or eliminated completely. As you can see in the contingency budget, i.e. what will happen if the sales tax is not passed, there are several major reductions to AHCCCS, DES, DHS, and Education. Specifically, Education is set to take a $428 million reduction if prop 100 is not passed, which would be 15-20% of their budget.

http://www.azleg.gov...lls/sb1001s.htm
(section 149)

Maybe you do not agree that a sales tax increase is good tax policy. Fair enough, it's pretty regressive and unfairly burdens the poor. That is not currently a valid argument against voting for prop 100, when the alternative is so dire.

If that is your position, that you agree that you want services and believe that the state should provide a certain level of service, please write to your legislators and let them know that. The reason that legislators aren't taking a closer look at tax policy in order to maintain services is because there is no pressure for them to do otherwise. write to your state legislators, include pictures of your kids, remind them that you are unhappy that your kids will have increased class sizes and diminished health care due to their decisions and remind them that this is an election year. actually, don't just write to your legislators, write to all elected officials, and those candidates for office.

don't forget to vote in november!

[Tony]

would i write to these same legislators to tell them that instead of increasing our taxes to pay for this stuff (which should be a priority, by the way), they should stop paying for frivolous things like sculptures of geckos on our freeways.

[Jacki O.]

ugh this makes me sad!

[differently biotic]

would i write to these same legislators to tell them that instead of increasing our taxes to pay for this stuff (which should be a priority, by the way), they should stop paying for frivolous things like sculptures of geckos on our freeways.

or 50K for a guest speaker to talk about how he turned his life around.

[skeksis]

Here's the frustrating thing:

Raising taxes when revenues are low is the job of your elected legislators. That's how it's worked in most states this last year or two. It is NOT our job. By voting yes on this proposal, you are basically affirming our (Republican/conservative/teabagger) government's right not to govern (or to govern badly). In other words, left or center leaning voters are forced to govern instead of the wingnut elected officials - who happen to be gleefully gutting the institutions the left or center leaning voter cares about. So the way I see it, a NO vote moves us a step closer to forcing the cons to face the consequences of their failure to govern - whereas a YES vote gives them a pass.

Not certain how I'm going to vote - no argument that the state desperately needs the $. BUT I think this is the wrong way to get it, and I fear that we'll be sorrier in the long run if the cons aren't forced to do any hard work. And I wouldn't dismiss Illya's point that this approach unfairly burdens those who can least afford it.

[rudolpho of pensacola]

i understand idealism and principal. and i agree with you. however i think you might feel differently
if you had someone depending on you whos needs were immediate.

Here's the frustrating thing:

Raising taxes when revenues are low is the job of your elected legislators. That's how it's worked in most states this last year or two. It is NOT our job. By voting yes on this proposal, you are basically affirming our (Republican/conservative/teabagger) government's right not to govern (or to govern badly). In other words, left or center leaning voters are forced to govern instead of the wingnut elected officials - who happen to be gleefully gutting the institutions the left or center leaning voter cares about. So the way I see it, a NO vote moves us a step closer to forcing the cons to face the consequences of their failure to govern - whereas a YES vote gives them a pass.

Not certain how I'm going to vote - no argument that the state desperately needs the $. BUT I think this is the wrong way to get it, and I fear that we'll be sorrier in the long run if the cons aren't forced to do any hard work. And I wouldn't dismiss Illya's point that this approach unfairly burdens those who can least afford it.

[skeksis]

I work (directly & sometimes indirectly) for the state... mostly through ASU, and I promise you this is personal to me. But you're right that I do have the luxury to be more idealist about this. Still, without really knowing all the specifics, I can't imagine trusting our current state gov't to allocate any funds raised by this tax to the programs you mentioned. Instead I'd guess the more likely outcome will be shoring up tax cuts for business & the wealthy... or suing the feds to score a few political points, etc etc. That's what they do.

[Tony]

I work (directly & sometimes indirectly) for the state... mostly through ASU, and I promise you this is personal to me. But you're right that I do have the luxury to be more idealist about this. Still, without really knowing all the specifics, I can't imagine trusting our current state gov't to allocate any funds raised by this tax to the programs you mentioned. Instead I'd guess the more likely outcome will be shoring up tax cuts for business & the wealthy... or suing the feds to score a few political points, etc etc. That's what they do.

word. if i vote for this tax and these programs STILL don't get funding i'm going to walk down to the capitol and take a shit on jan brewer's desk.

[chadk]

word. if i vote for this tax and these programs STILL don't get funding i'm going to walk down to the capitol and take a shit on jan brewer's desk

if it goes through the cuts will be less

if it does not go through the cuts will be insane