Budget passed today

MARTY OMOTO
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY RIGHTS PERSPECTIVES
FEBRUARY 19, 2009 – THURSDAY MORNING
To read other and previous commentaries, go to the CDCAN website at:
www.cdcan.us
EMAIL REPLY TO THIS COMMENTARY: martyomoto@rcip.com

ADVOCACY IS ABOUT LIVES THAT MATTER - NOT ABOUT A REPORT THAT IS ABOUT
CONTROLLING REGIONAL CENTER COSTS
SACRAMENTO - I am writing this sort of buzzed (and not in a good way
either) from the perspective of dealing with the ongoing seemingly
endless budget fight, so forgive me if my words that follow don't make
sense (though some people probably think that is an on-going problem for
me whenever I write or talk).

In the public forums to be held February 19th, 27th and March 2, the
Department of Developmental Services will be seeking input from the
public on how to achieve $100 million in savings - or reductions, with a
trigger of an additional 7.1% cut to regional center provider payments
beginning September 1, 2009, if the Legislature determines that there was
sufficient changes in state laws to achieve the $100 million in cuts (or
savings to the state). That 7.1% cut would go into effect if $100
million in savings will not be achieved, on top of the 3% cut in regional
center provider payments that is to go in effect February 1, 2009 (and
that leads to another question of HOW that will be accomplished
retroactively).

For those public forums, it was suggested that the a report written by
the Department of Developmental Services over a year and half ago (at the
direction of the Legislature) that outlined different ways to control
regional center costs is one basis - but not the only one - to consider
regarding ideas to achieve $100 million in savings during the 2009-2010
budget year.

Some people have viewed that particular report as if it was the agenda
for the public forums, as if that report and the list of possible cuts
in it are the only options and ideas available or possible. It is isn't
- and the budget related "trailer bill" language makes that clear.

But even if the budget language didn't make that clear, it should be
clear to us as good advocates that our advocacy demands that we bring up
and sometimes force attention and consideration of different public
policy ideas that the State may not have considered, may not want
addressed or may not want to focus on They have their job - and there
are tremendously good and decent people working in the Department of
Developmental Services. But we have our job too. And we should do our
job as advocates.

We should not as advocates allow any report or document to somehow
control our commitment to rights or limit our vision for the future or
diminishing our hopes for the people we love. That's not being
unrealistic or avoiding a hard choice - it recognizes reality and the
limited choices we often face. I know that from personal experience, as
I know so many families and people do.

Saying "no more cuts" is not the same as saying "no cuts". The latter
assumes that nothing happened before this budget year except for
spending.

As advocates we need to remind ourselves and policymakers that we
remember the year before that, and the year before that, and the year
before that, and the year before that and years going back to late 2001
(and not including the early 1990's) all were years when cuts were made
not only to developmental services- but to many other services and
programs impacting people with disabilities, mental health needs and
seniors.

Not remembering or recognizing that ignores the harsh reality of the
hundreds of millions of dollars of ongoing cuts - called "cost
containment" that have been in place that has cut funding to regional
centers, for more than a half a decade and longer.

So saying "no more cuts" is not ignoring reality - in fact it recognizes
it when perhaps the State and others do not.

One only has to look at how the State made the "hard choice" of cutting
(suspending) the state cost of living money owed to the lowest income
people with disabilities, the blind and lowest income seniors on the
federal and state funded SSI/SSP (Supplemental Security Income./State
Supplemental Payment) grants.

Since 1991, the State has cut that cost of living money owed not once,
not twice, not five times - but SIXTEEN times - and not including the
times it also suspended passing through the federal cost of living money
owed. When cut that many times, SSI/SSP is no longer a "hard choice" to
cut - it has become an "easy target".

And that program - like the regional centers, In-Home Supportive Services
and Medi-Cal have become the easy targets by some because growth in the
numbers of people who are eligible and need services - and use services
is growing faster than the general population and the current level of
revenues. Of course no one from the State has really has explained the
reasoning that the births of children with disabilities is somehow
magically restricted to the growth in the general population. Or the
growth in the numbers of seniors. Where does it say - other than for
strictly budget reasons - that there is supposed to be a link? If
anything, it should define the unmet or underserved need - not outrageous
growth as if it was the fault of the mother giving birth to a child with
autism or down syndrome.

So the response has been to somehow cut or reduce caseload and to put a
damper on use of services.

Which is why there is a proposal from the Governor seeking a $100 million
reduction - not specified how - to cut the growth in regional center
spending. On the face of it - especially given the enormous budget
deficit and bad economic times, it seems reasonable.

Yes, we can always examine - and should on an on-going basis, how to make
regional centers, providers - everyone - more efficient and effective not
only in saving money, but in saving lives too by making the difference it
is suppose to make. That is real reform and cost savings.

And here is what I suggest and hope others will suggest too:

The State should not make this cut - at least not now, when it is still
possible - and something as advocates we should fight for - in getting
funding that is coming to California from the economic stimulus bill, to
off-set the $100 million targeted cut in growth, so that people are not
harmed - and we will all have the time that all of us deserve in making
good decisions that will result in a better system, and real savings.

And here's perhaps an even more significant reason not to impose that
$100 million cut to growth or the additional provider payment cut in
September:

The shadow of a proposed amendment to the State Constitution that would,
if approved by voters in May, impose a strict and hard spending cap or
limitation on state spending tied to a ten year trend of state revenues,
and requirement for a rainy day fund that could be used for only certain
one time purposes.

That spending cap amendment will likely - at this point - be approved,
with recent polls showing 70% support. And if it wins, it would go into
effect immediately - for the 2009-2010 State budget year.

Assuming it does - and it seems likely it will at this point - that alone
will have a profound impact on regional centers - and also on other
services and supports in other programs including In-Home Supportive
Services, SSI/SSP, Medi-Cal and more. It could have a profound impact on
a person's right of choice to live in their own communities and in their
own home rather than just one choice of living in a healthy facility or
other institutional setting.

So that spending cap will - on its own, impose controls on spending and
growth in all programs. Republican Senator George Runner spoke on the
Senate Floor earlier this week while the budget was being debated, saying
that if that hard spending cap would have been in place five years ago
"we would not be in the situation of a budget shortfall right now". He
has been a strong advocate that the budget needs to cut spending - and
not raise taxes at all.

And while I don't believe everything Senator Runner has to say - it is
worthwhile for us as advocates to consider what he said regarding the
spending cap.

And so, I believe that with that likely scenario of a spending cap being
approved by voters on May 19, 2009, and it going into effect for the
2009-2010 State budget year, that it is wrong to move forward on cutting
another $100 million from the regional center budget or to impose an
additional 7.1% cut to provider payments (if that $100 million cut does
not happen).

That spending cap will profoundly control spending and growth in the
regional center system - and with that reality coming not years from now
- but months from now, it is more important that we focus how regional
centers and community based providers and families and adults with
developmental disabilities can function effectively and efficiently under
that.

That is what I think the focus of discussion needs to be.

That is not saying "no cuts". We have been cut. And we will be cut more
in ways we may not totally understand in the coming years when that
spending cap is passed and put in place, that will impact lives - the
lives that matter to us.

That is facing reality. And that is confronting the real hard choice we
face together.

Because if we always remember that every life matters, than we will
remember that we are talking about lives, about values and about rights -
and not just about savings and a budget line item.
MARTY OMOTO COMMENTARY AND ACTION ALERTS
This is a periodic personal commentary and ACTION ALERTS by Marty Omoto,
director/advocate of the California Disability Community Action Network
(CDCAN). These commentaries represent the personal opinion of Marty Omoto
only - and does not necessarily represent the viewpoints or opinions of
anyone else. These commentaries are separate from the CDCAN Reports,
which strive to be objective in getting information out to people with
disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, their families, workers and
others.

Address inquires to Marty Omoto, CDCAN at 1225 8th Street, Suite 480,
Sacramento, CA 985814 916/446-0013 or email martyomoto@rcip.com Website:
http://www.cdcan.us to get the free non-partisan CDCAN Disability News
Reports and to view archived copies. Omoto's sister Alana had
developmental and other disabilities.

Since 2000, CDCAN Reports and commentaries go out to over 45,000 people
with disabilities, seniors, families, Asian and Pacific Islanders
disability groups, other minority advocacy groups, organizations,
policymakers, media and others across California. It is okay to forward
this - just provide attribution.

PLEASE HELP CDCAN CONTINUE ITS WORK!!!
Townhall Telemeetings, reports and alerts and other activities cannot
continue without your help!
CDCAN Disability Rights News Reports, Telemeetings & other Events
Please send your contribution/donation (make payable to "CDCAN" or
"California Disability Community Action Network):

CDCAN
1225 8th Street Suite 480
Sacramento, CA 95814
Note: the paypal option on the CDCAN website is working