Published: Saturday, April 16, 2011
Guest commentary / State budget
Legislators need to take a longer view
State lawmakers have proposed severe cuts to education, health care, and other essential public services and programs. These reductions are being considered in order to address a $5.1 billion shortfall and balance the state budget. As trite as it sounds, this approach is penny-wise and pound foolish. Lawmakers are looking at the budget backwards, cutting services now that will raise costs down the road.
For example, lawmakers are proposing to reduce the hours of care that seniors and people with disabilities receive in their home by 6 to 18 percent. Washington has been a leader in the movement toward home and community based care and has sustained a policy of allowing seniors to age in place. Yet, cutting back on care that helps people stay in their homes (dressing, bathing, eating, and medication assistance) can result in greater usage of nursing facilities, which cost nearly three times as much as in-home care.
In every part of the state budget, there are examples of how a focused investment now saves us all considerable resources over time.
•Investments in early learning mean fewer remedial classes later.
Preventive mental health care keeps people out of more expensive prisons and state hospitals.
Children in state-run foster care cost the state $12,540 per child, per year -- yet a family receives only $3,267 lifetime maximum for family preservation services, which exist, in part, to keep kids out of foster care.
These are far-reaching, long-term budget decisions that affect our future and our quality of life. Lawmakers need to understand the effects of their decisions so that they can make the right choice for the future of our state. Unfortunately, we don't take this type of holistic view of the budget in our decision-making now.
A more responsible approach would weigh both the short- and long-term effects of a proposal, and make investments that will make Washington stronger over time. For example, Sen. Nick Harper (D-Everett) has sponsored a bill that would require state agencies to estimate how cuts to one program affect other areas of the budget, so that we can see whether proposed budget cuts will end up costing us all more down the road. The bill received a hearing in committee, but no further action has been taken.
As the economy continues its slow recovery, policy makers will be forced to deal with gaps between our needs and the resources we have to meet them for the next few years. We should make sure that the choices we make now to deal with this crisis don't undermine our future prosperity or leave us unprepared for the next recession. Legislators ought to consider including reforms as part of the budget for the next two years, such as those in Sen. Harper's bill.
Reforming our state budget begins with legislators seeing the big picture and taking the long view so that we will be able to make better, more informed decisions about the budget that are in line with our values as Washingtonians.
Remy Trupin is executive director of the Washington State Budget & Policy Center, a progressive policy organization based in Seattle.
For example, lawmakers are proposing to reduce the hours of care that seniors and people with disabilities receive in their home by 6 to 18 percent. Washington has been a leader in the movement toward home and community based care and has sustained a policy of allowing seniors to age in place. Yet, cutting back on care that helps people stay in their homes (dressing, bathing, eating, and medication assistance) can result in greater usage of nursing facilities, which cost nearly three times as much as in-home care.
In every part of the state budget, there are examples of how a focused investment now saves us all considerable resources over time.
•Investments in early learning mean fewer remedial classes later.
Preventive mental health care keeps people out of more expensive prisons and state hospitals.
Children in state-run foster care cost the state $12,540 per child, per year -- yet a family receives only $3,267 lifetime maximum for family preservation services, which exist, in part, to keep kids out of foster care.
These are far-reaching, long-term budget decisions that affect our future and our quality of life. Lawmakers need to understand the effects of their decisions so that they can make the right choice for the future of our state. Unfortunately, we don't take this type of holistic view of the budget in our decision-making now.
A more responsible approach would weigh both the short- and long-term effects of a proposal, and make investments that will make Washington stronger over time. For example, Sen. Nick Harper (D-Everett) has sponsored a bill that would require state agencies to estimate how cuts to one program affect other areas of the budget, so that we can see whether proposed budget cuts will end up costing us all more down the road. The bill received a hearing in committee, but no further action has been taken.
As the economy continues its slow recovery, policy makers will be forced to deal with gaps between our needs and the resources we have to meet them for the next few years. We should make sure that the choices we make now to deal with this crisis don't undermine our future prosperity or leave us unprepared for the next recession. Legislators ought to consider including reforms as part of the budget for the next two years, such as those in Sen. Harper's bill.
Reforming our state budget begins with legislators seeing the big picture and taking the long view so that we will be able to make better, more informed decisions about the budget that are in line with our values as Washingtonians.
Remy Trupin is executive director of the Washington State Budget & Policy Center, a progressive policy organization based in Seattle.
Comments
(