Gov cutting aid for toddlers with disabilities
In the revised budget summary, the FY2010 Governor’s revised recommended budget includes eliminating the funding for the Birth to Three program, which as of the last report, served just over 1000 kids in South Dakota requiring early intervention because of disabilities.
Actually, this one caught my particular attention because my daughter with a speech disability was served by this program, and received services to assist her with speech therapy, with physical therapy, and with orthopedic inserts for her shoes to help her with her walking. The funding comes from the state and federal government, and it’s leaving me wondering who will serve these kids with the program gone?
I’m thinking that not only will these kids now be severly delayed as they hit school, that all of the expense in serving them and providing therapy for them will now get dumped (as you might have guessed it) on the school districts, resulting in increased special ed costs as they try to address problems that were once solved but now exist or are far worse because they weren’t addressed during the formative years with the absence of the program.
So, was this a sacred cow that shoudn’t have been cut? Or a legitimate candidate for the chopping block?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I suspect the goal with these cuts is to get the legislature to raise taxes.
The gov would like to pinch them for inflating revenue estimates (even though he signed the general bill) and he’d also like to insulate Daugaard.
Welcome to the wreckage that the Rounds Administration has brought us to. It’s like Bush Lite. I thought he had met the 2010 economic development goals and everything was honky dory.
PP, you know we’ll never see your party vote for a tax increase to fund these these programs, no matter how meritorious or how bad things get. It’s going to be the deaf kids and kids like your daughter who get to suffer the consequences of the Rounds Administration’s imprudence.
You yourself are always saying the legislators should cut, cut, cut. Here’s their chance. Unfortunately, it gores your ox in the process.
Didn’t President Ford say if the government can give you something they can also take it away? We just might get to watch that happen this session.
What’s a conservative to do?
But we will have plenty of Rounds still working for state government when the legislature leaves Pierre in March. And the crony capitalists who support this system of unopen, pay-to-play government will still get their paydays.
And what do the masses get to help keep them content despite the suffering of kids, state employees, and the well being of our state? We’ll probably be able to get a pistol without waiting.
What a trade off. What a state. Let the bread and circuses begin.
Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net
Everybody will protect those programs that help them personally. Even PP.
Some would call it welfare, others might call it entitlement. Either way…let the fighting begin: First round: Arts vs. Free Health Care For Kids of Parents of Means Who Have Disabilities
*ding ding*
I’m just surprised how light the Board of Regents got off. Except for the School for the Deaf, and some maintenance (which they’re known to defer when it suits them anyway), they’re cutting less across 5 institutions (500k) then the state fair got cut (750k).
I think there would be some creative ways that the legislature could look at what goes on in that fiefdom, and come up with tons of savings.
For starters, they could suspend payments on the 20 million dollar payroll system I hear still has glitches after 2-3 years until it’s fixed. I’m sure that would free up some cash.
And then we can start getting serious.
When the governor spoke weeks ago about a “structural” issues and “structural” deficit in the budget, the strong implication was that he would offer “structural” solutions to increase the efficiency of delivering government services. His budget does nothing of the sort. Unfortunately his budget recommendations amount to grand tinkering to fit available revenue. Among possible “structural” efficiencies that were ignored were (and this list is not exclusive or meant to imply all need be adopted):
-extend the retirement date of state workers to the life expectancy (as was the case when social security was established);
-put all state employees under Class B retirement because we can not longer afford Class A or useless eaters (see retirement age, above);
-immediately ban double dipping, whether through direct employment or “contract” loophole, (a state or county worker should receive one paycheck per pay period (either for work or retirement but never both);
-adopt a unicameral legislature (it’s worked for over 120 years in Nebraska and would save millions);
-adopt a state university system to increase efficiencies in higher ed delivery;
-consolidate counties (especially east river counties) established to deliver services in the horse-n-buggy era, (consolidation should begin as three, four or five into one);
-consolidate school districts with no more than one per county though a some low population counties may share a district;
-establish that all contracts be bid, save for a few small ones over a short period where costs of bid processing exceed savings;
-stop building roads, bridges and exits to nowhere or towns that closed schools and lost population.
FDR cut federal salaries 15% and cut pensions during the First Great Depression. These options must be on the table for state government but were ignored by the governor.
Certainly there are other ideas. Legislators Heidepriem, Nygaard and Howe are commended for, practically alone, having the courage to offer their recommendations.
grudznick, Even though I have a child who has disabilities, I’m far from having means.
By the way, your typecasting is unbecoming to yourself.
Grud –
Yes, I could pay for part of it. If Birth to 3 wasn’t available, I would. However, I would not have been able to provide or afford all of what was needed, as the recommendations for my daughter’s needs were quite extensive.
I would have been willing to give up cable tv, and every other common luxury that most people take for granted to provide that, and it still wouldn’t have been enough. As it is, I have incredible medical bills for her, and I’m barely able to pay them. Children such as preemies, or those with even mild disabilities have that tendency.
What would the result have been without Birth to 3? My daughter would have been 2 years behind her already incredibly delayed and severely impaired communication skills. And the school district would have had to deal with a child that much farther behind as they tried to educate her.
Now, imagine if it’s not me, of reasonable means, but some poor schmuck working in a diner? They’d be able to provide far, far less, and schools would have the burden of providing so much more.
If they can get a child to where they need to be before school – it does cost less in the long run, as special education in a school setting is expensive.
Dumping the program will just mean a greater need for special ed teachers – at incredible expense – as schools try to fix what the kids weren’t able to learn during the years when kids normally learn to walk & talk.
And Grud, let me offer that I have it on good authority that the Birth to three has some strong supporters (and even clients) in the legislature. I don’t think this one is going away.
PP:
Your defense of your daughter’s program is reasoned and reasonable. But your situation and your cries will be multiplied many times over by others who also feel the program that helps them or their children is also important.
To paraphrase Roy Batty from Blade Runner, these cries will be nothing more than tears in the rain to Gov. Rounds.
Welcome to the budget cutting that many of you have been calling for. Enjoy. Remember the old Chinese saying, be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.
Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net
You can pay me now or pay me later goes the ad. Early intervention, whether it be for PP’s kiddo or for kids at risk has shown proven economic benefits. The governor wants to bolster the economy, education, particularly in the early years, have a great return on investment. Children’s Care is a private organization that runs on the dollars of school districts and insurance to provide its services. Sure they have a Foundation, but that is not focused on the direct service costs.
Not only is PP’s ox gored by this proposed cut, but the taxpayers of South Dakota are getting the shaft as we’ll have to pay more in services when kids like PP’s get into the traditional school age and beyond.
I have an example though of where a child is deemed premature and getting a “teacher” at his house once a week based on that. This child was born two weeks premature by C-section for a medical reason. He is no more delayed than any other kid. But the state is spending over $100 a week on him for 3 years or so. This is not in SD, it’s in MN, but I imagine the program is about the same. Maybe the criteria need to be looked at and revised.
that’s a tough one, pp. i suspect, though, that there are all kinds of valuable programs that help those in need that could be cut, and some that have never received a dime from the state.
the problem is where does it end? if you fund speech disability programs, you should fund cochlear implants. if you fund this, you should fund that. conceivably, there is no unworthy program out there. the state could be asked to fund everything.
the problem is that programs like birth to 3, and similar programs, ought to be private. the even bigger problem is that the various levels of government so overburden the taxpayer, that it is often easier for the government to pay for programs like this.
the average south dakotan works until well into june to pay all his financial obligations to the various levels of government. yet, we’re surpised that the private sector is unable to sustain programs like this? we shouldn’t be.
if the government took less of our money — and the main culprit is the federal government — we might not be having such discussions.
but here we are. the government is so involved in our lives that there can’t be a cut in programs without somebody, even good conservatives like you, yelping in pain.
it just ain’t right.
that is, it just ain’t right that the government has grown so large and become so burdensome.
I love a good cat fight among conservatives.
I have always asserted that conservatives don’t want less government they just want their government.
My child was greatly served by birth to three. The program is more than the services provided. It is the screening and finding the services that are available. B2To3 refered us to Children’s Care, school district, etc.
Both of my kids received speech therapy for a small speech defect. When the oldest was evaluated at age three and started at age four, I was flabergasted that I didn’t have to pay for it but that it was covered under the school system. I fully expected to have to pay for it. It was my responsibility, after all, not anyone else’s.
On well, just like the great O says, the gov’t is here to take care of you, even when we are out of money. Maybe SD should do like the feds are doing, just print our own money and deficit spend!
lex – I’m not going to argue your root point (government is too big – we are overtaxed) BUT one of your statements – I’m going to question: “the average south dakotan works until well into june to pay all his financial obligations to the various levels of government. ”
So – you are saying that the average South Dakotan is paying somewhere around 50% of their income in taxes? The numbers don’t agree with this:
The average South Dakotan earned around $39000 in 2008 and paid somewhere between 8 and 8.8% (about $3500 rounded up from the higher value) in state and local taxes (Sales, Property, etc.). With just taking the standard deductions for federal income tax/Social Security/etc, that would be around 9000. This adds up to $12500. This would be less than 1/3 of their income This would mean that they have their taxes paid by mid April. That would be around two months earlier than your figure.
For some reason I keep thinking back to my Econ 101 class I took at Wichita State many, many years ago and one of the simple things I learned about economics. Guns or butter?
What are “guns” in this budget–essential–and what are “butter”–nice but not essential?
That, to me, seems to be where the debate should lie.
Conservatives, keep eating each other as you mull this question over in Pierre this session.
Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net
no, anthony, that’s not what i’m saying. looking at just taxes, we work until april 12 to pay those off. we have the 9th lowest tax burden in the country. not bad but could be better.
but that’s not what i was talking about. we all know that the cost of government goes well beyond taxes, but includes other fees and costs of regulation compliance.
to cover all that, we work actually until july 5. we are the 10th lowest state. alaska is ranked #1, with a cost of government day of june 21.
i like the guns or butter question, mr. epp. most republicans and democrats have forgotten that.
Looks like Rounds wants to look like a budget watcher by cutting programs with few rich and influential supporters but with some support from farsighted political perspectives.
He probably hopes he can look like the responsible one, but have alternate taxes or whatever prevent his draconian cuts.
Watching businesses shut down or slash employment in South Dakota even if there is no income tax here suggests that a corporate income tax would make little difference to business or to the prices we pay, but might make a significant good impact on state funding.
Much of the reason for investing in helping children is to invest in the future by allowing them to grow into productive adults and not feather the nest of rich families or poor families.
South Dakota is between a rock and a hard place. Both may be in the heads of our state “leaders”.
My autistic son was served by this program. He was non-verbal and without the service of speech therapy, he would most likely still be non-verbal. It was months before he was able to say one word, and shortly after he was three-years-old, he started to verbalize. It was only one word, but it was music to my ears. Within a short time, he was saying whole sentences, and it was found that he could read and he knew the definitions of words beyond a three-year-old. He will always have the autistic traits, but he’s able to communicate with the world. It’s a never-ending gift to a parent.
In my humble view, all of P.P’s points are valid, and I’ll add, without this program, it would make it difficult for the children and the parents. Programs like Birth to Three assist in helping families as a whole, which continues into the community making it a whole.