The new law ensures that Vermonters with autism and developmental delays will get therapies they need to improve their quality of life.  As a member of the Senate Health Committee, I was deeply involved in crafting our new health care exchange legislation and major reforms of our mental health system. These are great achievements, yet it is fair to say that for many this is the most important piece of health care legislation passed this year.

It may sound simple but this is a very big deal.

For years Vermont has struggled with the issue and in fact lagged well behind other states in meeting the needs of people with autism.

While we talked about a Vermont universal health care system, where everyone is in and nobody is out, kids with autism have been shut out, even when their families have been faithfully paying costly insurance premiums. Break an arm or be diagnosed with a cancer, insurance likely pays. But have a kid with autism and the insurance simply says no.

Now both private insurance companies and public programs like Medicaid and Catamount Health will cover medically necessary, evidence-based therapies provided by certified professionals for Vermonters from birth until the age of twenty-one. And rather than being limited to autism all developmental delays are covered, so services are provided according to need, not a specific diagnosis, removing a major stumbling block for people with a variety of symptoms sometimes complicated to categorize.

It is a big deal for families who finally will get the services they need, a big step forward in our efforts to expand healthcare to all Vermonters, and a major victory for parents and advocates who worked tirelessly to win this change.  The parents were persistent and courageous, helping legislators understand the issues and craft a workable solution, while juggling responsibilities of home and work and caring for a unique special child.

The Shumlin Administration was also supportive and we worked closely with Secretary of Human Services Doug Racine and his staff.

It was a pleasure to bring these folks together and know that by doing so we are ensuring a better life for our kids and families.

Parents and lobbyists held a press conference Wednesday promoting a bill that would expand private insurance coverage for people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder to include those older than 6 years.

In 2010, Vermont passed Act 127, which mandates that private insurance companies and Medicaid cover diagnosis and treatment for autism spectrum disorders for children from the age of 18 months to 6 years or when the child enters first grade.

The private insurance aspect of the 2010 law went into effect in October. The Medicaid part has yet to be implemented.

Sen. Anthony Pollina, the lead sponsor of the new bill, said the idea is to require insurance companies to treat people with autism the same as those with other health problems.

Only covering children up to age 6 is not sufficient, he said. His bill requires insurers to pay for services for autism regardless of the patient’s age.

“If you don’t continue beyond 6, you can lose a lot of ground,” he said.

Judith Ursitti, the regional director of state government affairs for Autism Speaks, praised the state for the 2010 law but said Vermont should do more.

“People benefit from early intervention, but autism doesn’t disappear once you reach age 6,” she said.

According to claims data from states that mandate insurance coverage, Ursitti says, on average private insurance company policyholders would only have to pay about 25 cents more each month to cover expanded services.

One insurance company, MVP Health Care, has estimated that the current law mandating covering up to age 6 would increase its premiums across the board 0.5 percent to 1 percent — enough to cause those on the edge of being able to afford insurance to drop coverage. Unlike other states, Vermont puts no cap on the dollar amount that insurance companies will have to pay per individual.

Parents of children with autism, however, say lack of private insurance coverage creates a burden for them.

Claudia Pringles has a 12-year-old daughter with autism. She dropped private insurance coverage for her daughter to receive assistance through the Medicaid’s Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program. Still, most of the services her daughter receives come through school.

“After 3, I have no access to treatment,” Pringles said.

Pringles’ daughter is one of 183 children in Vermont who receive Medicaid assistance through what is called a Katie Beckett waiver, which disregards a parent’s income for a child with a certain degree of disability.

Switching to Medicaid is common practice for parents with children with autism since private insurance will not cover specialized services after age 6. Until October, when Act 127 went into effect, they would not cover any specialized services for autism.

Vermont’s 2010 law is the only one among the 29 states that mandate autism coverage to require expanded Medicaid coverage to the same level of private insurance. Essentially, in Vermont, Medicaid will have to cover the same services as private insurance. In other states, this is not the case.

Expanding that coverage for children up to age 6, the state Agency of Human Services estimated in a report, would cost $10 million. Ursitti said her group is working with the state to revamp that analysis to only include medically necessary treatments, which, she says will cost much less.

Gov. Peter Shumlin has proposed postponing these payments to save the state money.

Pollina said his bill focuses on private insurance, but it would require Medicaid coverage for children up to age 6. After 6, the mandate is only for private insurance.

In the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare Wednesday, Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, questioned whether it is hypocritical for the state to require private insurance to cover services that the government will not cover through Medicaid.

On Oct. 2, Lisa Howarth’s daughter, Stella, celebrated her sixth birthday.

Stella has been diagnosed with autism, and she uses a communication device instead of speaking.

For Stella, turning 6 brought a harsh dose of reality.

A law passed in Vermont requiring insurance companies to cover the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders for children 18 months old to 6 years. The mandate was originally supposed to go into effect in July 2011, but the state postponed implementation until Oct. 1. This left Stella with one day to receive the benefits of coverage through her parents’ private insurance. That day was a Saturday when offices were closed.

The recent roadblock to private insurance coverage is one of many the Howarths have encountered.

Stella’s communication device, for example, cost around $8,000. Private insurance denied coverage. Medicaid eventually paid for it, but only after a fight.

The ordeal added to the stress her parents are already under as they struggle to provide around the clock attention for their daughter.

“From the time we get up to the time we go to bed, it’s all about Stella,” said Lisa Howarth.

Lisa, who is a teacher, and her husband, Daniel, try to ensure Stella gets enough speech therapy and emotional support. The really frustrating thing, Lisa Howarth said, is the notion that one day, under the law, services for Stella would be covered and on another they wouldn’t.

“You’re giving a child a voice, and you’re not going to pay for it,” Lisa said.

Stella qualifies for assistance under a waiver that enables severely disabled children and adults to be eligible for Medicaid based on the individual’s income and assets alone.

While the Howarths are grateful for the assistance Medicaid provides, Lisa said services have been cut back. As Stella grew up, she was permitted fewer therapy sessions.

“People are saying ‘she’s old enough; she’s had enough treatment; you can replicate the services at home,’” Howarth said.

Stella is one of hundreds of children in Vermont with an autism spectrum disorder — ASD as it is commonly known. These complex disorders manifest themselves in varying degrees, from minor difficulties in social interaction and communication to more severe problems. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, around one in 110 children fall on the autism spectrum. About one in 70 boys in the United States is diagnosed with autism.

Under Vermont’s current law, Stella’s private insurance company does not have to cover specialized services to treat her disorder.

A new bill, championed by Progressive Sen. Anthony Pollina would lift the age cap for mandatory private insurance coverage.

“The basic thrust is to require private insurance companies to cover necessary autism therapies for people who need them regardless of their age,” Pollina said. “I think the question for us as Vermonters is what’s taking us so long to do this?”

According to the advocacy Web site autismvotes.org, 29 states have enacted autism insurance reform laws mandating some type of private insurance coverage.

Some states, like Massachusetts, have no age limit or dollar amount for what private insurance has to cover. New York has no age limit, but it puts a cap on the amount of money insurance companies have to pay out for applied behavioral analysis. Vermont has one of the lowest age limit cutoffs under its current law, but it doesn’t cap coverage. Vermont is also the only state to include Medicaid coverage in its private insurance coverage law.

The low age limit, Pollina says, doesn’t make sense.

“There’s clearly in practice a bias against people affected by autism without a doubt,” he said. “If I developed a brain tumor and I’m only going to live six months, insurance covers it, but it won’t cover services for a kid with autism who has the chance to live a long, productive life.”

While Pollina says early intervention is key, the benefit of autism therapy is not really evident unless it goes beyond age 6, he said.

Sen. Dick McCormack, D-Windsor, is a co-sponsor of Pollina’s bill. McCormack is a self-proclaimed “curmudgeon” who says he is skeptical of so-called behavioral issues in children. Autism, he says, is different — therapy really helps this diagnosable disorder.

“The alienation from the community is a tragedy, and we know that it can be mitigated, that it can be addressed,” he said. “To help a person who’s autistic get to that level of functionality is a very important thing to do.”

Angela Timpone agrees. Timpone is the parent of a 9-year-old boy with autism. Her son, Tristan, is in fourth grade and receives the majority of his therapy at school through an individualized education program. Tristan was nonverbal until he was 4½ years old. Now, he is a smiling but seemingly shy kid.

Tristan still needs help with social skills training, Timpone said, over the next two years before he enters middle school. Tristan is too old to get private insurance coverage for his therapies under the Vermont mandate. Years ago his parents dropped private insurance to get Medicaid coverage for their son.

Under what is commonly called a Katie Beckett waiver, Tristan is eligible for coverage under Medicaid regardless of his parents’ income. Medicaid covers some services, but with reimbursement from Medicaid chronically low in Vermont, parents struggle to find providers who will take it.

For now, Tristan receives most of his therapy in school, which can be disruptive, Timpone said.

“All the other kids are doing math and halfway through you get pulled out to work on reading or speech,” Timpone said.

If private insurance covered some of these services, Timpone said, he could have a more regular school day and undergo therapy paid for by insurance after school.

“Last year we had to decide that Tristan didn’t learn cursive so he could get social skills training,” Timpone said.

Timpone said she is also curious about the cost shift from private insurance to Medicaid since it is common practice for parents of children with autism to drop private insurance coverage because it will not pay for autism therapies.

While advocates cheer expansion of private insurance coverage, insurance companies opposed the 2010 law and Pollina’s new bill.

The problem, says Gary Hughes, director of media relations for MVP Health Care, is the expense of the treatments, especially with no dollar limit. He said the costs will drive up premiums for all policyholders, inevitably causing some of them to drop coverage.

“There’s always a push and pull between what should be a covered benefit and what it would do in terms of overall cost of coverage,” Hughes said. “The question is: Do you reach a price point where some drop coverage and have no coverage?”

The current mandate in Vermont would raise the premiums for all MVP policy holders somewhere between 0.5 percent and 1 percent. For some people, that could tip them to the point where they cannot afford already increasing premiums, and they will go without insurance. Hughes said a dollar cap on how much individuals receive could ease that burden.

Another uncertainty in autism coverage comes from a new definition of the disorder that could sharply reduce the rate at which autism is diagnosed and limit the number of people who meet the criteria for health, educational and social services. The definition is now being reassessed by an expert panel appointed by the American Psychiatric Association, which is completing work on the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the first major revision in 17 years, according to the New York Times.

Medicaid muddies the waters

A provision in Act 127, the 2010 law that mandated private insurance coverage, requires Medicaid to fund autism therapies also.

That provision has created a roadblock to implementation based on a study that shows it would cost $10 million in net Medicaid expenditures to fund these services for the 183 children who qualify for Medicaid in Vermont.

In his annual budget address, Gov. Peter Shumlin proposed postponing these payments to save money.

Autism advocates have questioned the administration’s estimate of the $10 million line item.

The number comes from a 2011 report to the Legislature by the Agency of Human Services, Department of Education and Agency of Administration.

Suzanne Santarcangelo, director of health care operations for the Vermont Agency of Human Services, said the extra $10 million is primarily due to the fact that the definitions in Act 127 for what Medicaid would cover are broader than the existing mandate.

The report, Santarcangelo said, calculated the cost for applied behavioral analysis based on the Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention model that is most researched.

It is based on 40 hours of intensive intervention each week. The report estimates future savings due to early intervention, but the state would incur costs at the outset due to expanded services.

“It’s based on the intensity of need,” Santarcangelo said. “Not all kids get full packages in the current program.”

The gist of it is that the terms and definitions for what would be covered under Medicaid are broader than those already in use, Santarcangelo said.

The Medicaid issue has brought additional confusion into the implementation process for the 2010 law. While some parents advocated for increased Medicaid coverage, other groups pushed to repeal the law in its entirety.

Judith Ursitti is the Regional Director for State Advocacy Relations for Autism Speaks, an advocacy group.

For the 183 children covered by Medicaid in Vermont, that $10 million comes out to about $70,000 per child.

Ursitti said that estimate is flat out wrong. The issue, Ursitti said, is because autism is a spectrum, some kids need intensive care while others only need limited therapy.

“It’s like saying every person in the cardiologist’s waiting room needs a heart transplant,” Ursitti said. “It’s not one size fits all.”

Ursitti said she and others are pushing for Medicaid coverage for medically necessary health care, not global comprehensive coverage under Medicaid. Ursitti said she hopes the state and advocates can come to an agreement on what are the really essential services that kids need. This will bring that $10 million number way down and allow for more coverage.

One of the problems with Medicaid currently under what is called Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment — or EPSDT — is that it covers a broad range of therapies but not enough to the degree that is necessary to make a real difference in a child’s life, Ursitti said.

“The problem with Medicaid is instead of doing three or four things, they do 20,” Ursitti said. “You get a little smattering, but all the research supports intensive intervention for people with autism.”

Ursitti said a global approach from things like babysitting to horseback riding is great, but the state should focus on evidence-based medical care and cover those services to the degree that they are meaningful.

Another issue in Vermont is the low reimbursement rate for providers, which discourages many from accepting Medicaid and fails to draw experts to the state.

Sam Abel-Palmer, an attorney with the Disability Law Project at Vermont Legal Aid, said he too has doubts about the $10 million figure because it does not factor in individual necessity, meaning what does each child need.

The fundamental issue, Abel-Palmer said, is one of fairness. The Medicaid budget is strapped, he said.

“Medicaid has the entire burden of serving these kids,” he said. “You have kids who are Medicaid eligible who might be on private insurance but they don’t bother because what they need isn’t covered.”

Broader private insurance coverage could move a certain percentage of kids off Medicaid entirely, Abel-Palmer said, and take some of the burden off the government.

Postponing the Medicaid payments is not a done deal and will be factored into the budget process this legislative session. The Senate Committee on Health and Welfare plans to hear testimony this week on coverage for autism therapies.

They believe a state bank would strengthen the Vermont economy by making more capital available to small businesses.

VPR’s Bob Kinzel reports:

(Kinzel) The creation of a state bank has been a priority for Washington County senator Anthony Pollina for many years. Pollina has studied the operations of the only state bank in the country, it’s located in North Dakota, and he thinks Vermont would benefit from having a similar operation.

Listen to the VPR report here.

Pollina wants to take most of the money that the state temporarily invests in large out of state investment banks and redirect these funds to a Vermont state bank that would focus on making low interest loans to small businesses and perhaps even underwrite student loans.

(Pollina) “Doesn’t make any sense for us to be sending Vermont’s hard earned tax dollars to some bank on Wall Street which couldn’t care less about Vermont or Vermonters when we could keep that money here in the state of Vermont where we would have more control over it and therefore more of it would be invested here in the state.”

(Kinzel) Burlington Rep. Suzi Wizowaty is the lead sponsor of a companion bill in the House. She says the plan shouldn’t been seen as a criticism of Vermont banks but she thinks a state bank could offer additional benefits to the small business community.

(Wizowaty) “There’s a reason that we are one of the better economies in the country at the moment. We’re not in financial trouble here not nearly as much as almost every other state in the country but might there be an opportunity here with the state bank and that’s what this bill will answer.”

(Kinzel) Senator Pollina is also the lead sponsor of a bill that calls for a new way of examining the social and environmental well being of the state.

It’s called the Genuine Progress Indicator and it ranks how the state is doing in several dozen categories.

Pollina thinks adopting the GPI will help influence future budget debates at the Statehouse.

(Pollina) “Essentially the economy is going through some very major permanent changes. More people live in poverty fewer people could afford a home, people’s retirement funds are disappearing and good jobs are vanishing so we need new tools in order to measure the strength of our economy.”

(Kinzel) The GPI bill is being reviewed by the Senate Government Operations committee and Pollina is optimistic that the panel will support the legislation in the coming weeks.

Pollina is introducing a resolution asking the Legislature to support policies that close the wealth gap and oppose those that worsen it. He says the gap is growing in Vermont faster than in other states and Vermonters have endured some of the biggest drops in household income in the country.

Pollina proposes four specific ways to address inequality, the economy and the state budget.

“First we must admit what’s wrong with our economy. In 2010 and 2008 the U.S. Census found Vermont had the biggest declines in household income in the country. The average Vermont family is trying to get by on the same income they had 20 years ago. While some inequality is inevitable, it is also the result of policies that protect the wealthy while sticking it to average families. The Congressional Budget Office says government policy, including tax policy, is widening the income gap. It’s bad for the economy, for small business and families. Businesses need customers to grow and the economy can’t survive if families do not have decent incomes. Opposing increasing inequality is a start.

Second, it’s time to make the wealthiest Vermonters pay their fair share of taxes again, while giving a break to average families, perhaps with additional sales tax holidays.

Last session we debated a small tax increase for the wealthiest Vermonters who are benefiting big time from the Bush tax cuts. Some Senators voted no but said they would likely support the increase next session. Well, the session starts in two weeks; Vermonters are still struggling, the wealthy still enjoying tax cuts, the wealth gap still growing and state budget still under pressure. There are no more excuses.

Third, we can broaden the budget debate by having Vermont adopt a “Genuine Progress Indicator” (GPI) to consider important economic and social factors now ignored.

We need to build a better budget; one that puts people first. If we balance the state budget, by burdening working families and putting off important priorities like cleaning up pollution, we drive up costs over the long term. A GPI measures the real costs of things like water pollution, farmland loss and inequality and the benefits of things like safe communities and quality education and health care to chart a more honest course for our economy.

Fourth, we should invest more of our tax dollars here at home. I am again proposing the State use an econometric computer model when buying things, hiring consultants or investing in construction projects. The model determines which bids are “in the best interests of Vermont,” which usually means supporting Vermont businesses and creating Vermont jobs whenever possible. It’s a no brainer.”

Read Sen. Anthony Pollina’s Draft Resolution on income inequality

Article taken from VTDigger – http://vtdigger.org
URL to article: http://vtdigger.org/2011/12/21/pollina-inequality-economy-are-the-issues/

August 18, 2011

Washington County State Senator Anthony Pollina says Vermont needs a new way to measure the strength of our economy, one that better reflects what people are really experiencing.

He will introduce a proposal to have Vermont use a Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) to calculate “how our economy is really doing, how our families are doing and how our environment is doing.” It would supplement the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as Vermont’s measure of economic growth. Pollina says the GDP is “clearly out of touch with economic reality; “It measures production and consumption, it doesn’t tell us who is doing the consuming, where the wealth is or how growth is impacting families or the environment.”

He points out that Vermont’s GDP growth was stronger than most states last year, even while many Vermont families are struggling to pay bills and 20% are at risk of going hungry. “A Genuine Progress Indicator will include these and other factors and give a better indication of how the economy is really impacting the families who live in the real world,” he said.

“We are seeing real economic change, the income gap is growing, the middle class vanishing yet GDP grows, right along with lines at the food bank and families who can’t afford college. It hasn’t stopped us from cutting social programs and balancing our state budget on the backs of average families. As long as the rich get richer and buy more stuff and some big businesses do well GDP will grow, even while most families see their real income, buying power and ability to pay the bills go down.”

Pollina says the Genuine Progress Indicator will also bring a better state budget. “We need a budget with a new definition of success focused on what is really happening to our families, environment and economy.”

The same is true for the environment, he says, “GDP ignores the cost of pollution and climate change. The way it works, a meltdown at Vermont Yankee would boost GDP, bringing jobs to clean the mess while ignoring the environmental and health costs. GDP rose in Louisiana after Katrina and in Sri Lanka after a tsunami. It’s like a business that looks at gross income but never subtracts costs. GDP is no longer relevant.”

Pollina says we need to measure more than just what we make and consume. “We can’t just measure economic activity; we need to know if it is fair and sustainable. We should include the cost of poverty and pollution and give value to good things like safe communities and vacation time.

A Genuine Progress Indicator – GPI – will do it. Maryland uses a GPI tracking 26 indicators and the GUND Institute at UVM is a leader in developing GPI. It can all be measured with available data and surveys of Vermonters to see how people are experiencing our economy. For accountability the GPI would be on-line. So clicking on “green jobs” or “wealth inequality” shows a definition and what policymakers are doing about it.

The Maryland GPI can be viewed at  www.green.maryland.gov/mdgpi

To read the related Times Argus article, click here

The rift between the Progressive view and the Democratic view of the state of our economy was on full display Thursday when spokesmen for each addressed a rally held to defend Social Security and Medicare.

A group of senior citizens had gathered in Montpelier to speak out against threats to the two programs from the budget-cutting enthusiasms of members of Congress looking for solutions to the nation’s mounting debt. One of the speakers was Sen. Anthony Pollina, formerly a Progressive Party stalwart but elected to the Senate from Washington County as a Democrat.

Pollina talked about “the extreme overabundance of greed, greed that is dominating our country, greed that dominates this Congress, that allows Congress to be bought and sold by big money.”

He did not exempt the Vermont Legislature or Gov. Peter Shumlin from his criticism. “We have to do better in this Legislature to have a budget that’s not balanced on the backs of working families and the vulnerable, which we did do this year, let’s not kid ourselves,” he said.

Standing with him was the governor, who shared Pollina’s view of the greed of special interests — with a special mention of pharmaceutical and insurance companies — but who rejected Pollina’s criticism of the state budget. True, the budget contained $40 million in cuts to human services. But, Shumlin said, “I think we passed a budget that was compassionate and smart without hurting the most vulnerable.”

The denunciation of greed is a staple of progressive rhetoric, and after the financial meltdown and the hardships it caused, there is great satisfaction to be had excoriating the greed of the swindlers and sharp operators, the spineless and corrupt politicians, the titans of finance, the lobbyists and sycophants who continue to enrich themselves as the nation suffers. Sen. Bernard Sanders, godfather of the progressive movement in Vermont, has become one of the most popular senators in the nation in part by his willingness to focus on the currents of greed corrupting the nation.

But denunciations of greed don’t go far enough. That’s because the economic changes and the structures of privilege built into the system go beyond the greedy intentions of any individual. At least some of the super-rich who have benefited from the economic trends of the past several decades are the lucky beneficiaries of historical changes not of their making. Their greed is not the key factor. They had the acumen or the luck to spot an opportunity and take advantage of it. Who knew that hedge funds would become a huge economic force? The hedge fund industry is looking out for its interests as it fights changes in tax law that would increase its tax liabilities, and greed is certainly part of the motive. (For someone making $40 million a year to resist a tax burden comparable to that of a middle class taxpayer justifies Pollina’s moral opprobrium.) But large changes producing the increased financialization of the economy created the hedge fund industry in the first place.

Historians have noted that great concentrations of wealth have occurred in the past following the development of new technologies. Great fortunes were built by the railroads and the steel and oil industries, and great financial houses grew up with those fortunes. Later great fortunes were built by the high-tech industries, and Wall Street assumed an ever greater role in the economy.

It is important to see, not just the venal motives of some of the players, but also the larger trends and their destructive impact. Greed will always be with us. But when we allow economic trends to eat away at the opportunities of the middle class, then we are acquiescing in the weakening of our democratic society.

How to reverse those trends is the question. “Soak the rich” is a satisfying slogan, and certainly the tax benefits showered on the rich over the last decade will have to be reversed. But economic policymaking is more complicated and involves more than higher tax rates on the wealthy.

Shumlin wanted to avoid raising taxes on anyone, and so he proposed budget cuts that ate into human service programs. Was he surrendering to greed? It’s too simplistic to say so. He was making a political calculation that avoided riling the coterie of wealthy business leaders who retain political influence even in a liberal state like Vermont. But he was also preserving an agenda on health care, energy and other issues that could begin to transform our new Gilded Age into a more democratic and widely prosperous age.

MONTPELIER — Marguerite Desany, a 75-year-old Burlington resident, has been retired and enrolled in Medicare for more than a decade. But only in the past year has she started worrying that the government-run health insurance program could face cuts.

“I’m a little worried,” Desany said, as she sat in a chair under a tree in the Statehouse lawn. “I’d hate to see people go without.” Desany was one of about 40 people who attended a rally on the Statehouse steps in Montpelier on Thursday in support of Social Security and Medicare, two programs that many people fear could be cut or altered in a way that harms the people enrolled in the programs.

Those fears have been amplified in recent months as Congress made budget cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling and established a 12-member “super committee” to find at least $1.2 trillion in new savings. Medicare and Social Security have so far been spared, but that hasn’t eased everyone’s mind, because some politicians and members of the public continue calling for reforming the programs.

President Barack Obama says changes to Medicare need to be considered to address the nation’s debt, something many other Democrats fiercely oppose.

Janet Patterson, 73, of Burlington, doesn’t fear major immediate changes to the programs, but she is worried they will be diminished over time to the detriment of the next generation — including her nieces and nephews. “I’m concerned that what they’re going to do is take away little bits at a time,” Patterson said.

Vermont politicians spoke at the rally, which was organized by the Vermont Chapter of the Alliance of Retired Americans along with the AFL-CIO, a labor federation.

Gov. Peter Shumlin addressed the crowd and said the approach federal elected officials are taking to addressing the nation’s problems is wrong.

“You know, I never thought I would be living in a time when our nation is on its back, when we ask the people who have the least to make the greatest sacrifice and we ask the people who have the most to make no sacrifice at all,” Shumlin said. “What has happened to America?”

But Sen. Anthony Pollina, a Washington County Democrat, said that has been the attitude in Montpelier as well.

In a booming speech that echoed through downtown Montpelier, Pollina took a shot at the Vermont Legislature for passing a budget this year that failed to raise income taxes on wealthy Vermonters and made cuts to programs that serve Vermont residents.

“We have to do better in this Legislature to have a budget that’s not balanced on the backs of working families and the vulnerable, which we did do this year, let’s not kid ourselves,” he said.

Shumlin, who proposed the initial budget and resisted income tax hikes this year, said he disagrees with Pollina’s assessment. “I respectfully disagree,” Shumlin said, acknowledging there were about $40 million in human services cuts this year. “I think we passed a budget that was compassionate and smart without hurting the most vulnerable.”

During his speech, Shumlin said the nation’s debt problems are largely due to rising health care costs and promoted his attempt to reform health care, which he argues will save Vermont money.

“So the questions for us as a nation is how do we start addressing the real problems and not ask the most vulnerable, our seniors and our poorest to pay the price but actually have the courage to take on the special interests, the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, the folks who are wasting so much in our health care system and do what Vermont’s trying to do: make health care a right, not a privilege,” Shumlin said.

Pollina said Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not the country’s problems.

“These things are reasonable supports for people who live and work in the most powerful and richest nation on the face of the planet,” he said. “These are things we can afford.”

The real problem, Pollina said, is “the extreme overabundance of greed, greed that is dominating this country, greed that dominates this Congress, greed that allows Congress to be bought and sold by big money.”

Vermont’s congressional delegation did not attend the rally, but their representatives spoke and reiterated their support for Medicare and Social Security.

Anthony speaks at 350 VT rally

Anthony speaks at AIDS walk

making a point

family

Receiving the Lena Brown Award at the AFL-CIO Convention June, 2010

I appreciate you providing the rationale behind your decision to give outgoing UVM President Dan Fogel an outrageous severance package. But, essentially you say it is justified because it is the norm and UVM has to go along to attract its next President. I completely disagree. I would have liked you to oppose it and I think most Vermonters agree.

Tuition costs are increasing. UVM and our State Colleges are among the most expensive in the country. A college education is growing further out of reach for many Vermonters and we want to do more to keep young people in Vermont. Giving Fogel hundreds of thousands of dollars to do nothing is simply ridiculous.

Our last legislative session was dominated by talk of tough times, belt tightening and sacrifice. We passed a budget – I voted against it – cutting over $30 million from human service programs. We cut services for seniors and people with disabilities and decided not to fund health services for kids with autism.

We refused to ask wealthy Vermonters to pay a little more in taxes to help fund needed services (I proposed an amendment to do just that) and instead raised taxes on health services so already struggling families will pay more. Public employees and government officials took pay cuts. At UVM some workers were laid off, wages were frozen and the University continued reliance on part time faculty who get very low pay and no benefits for doing the same work as higher paid faculty.

From what I understand Fogel did not share the sacrifice. Rather than take a pay cut, he doled out bonuses to UVM top administrators. So, in the middle of all this belt tightening, and sacrifice, UVM, a supposedly public institution, getting taxpayer dollars, is rewarding someone who is leaving over $34,000 each month for 17 months to do nothing.

While parents are mortgaging their homes to pay for college, we are paying Dan Fogel’s mortgage. While we struggle with health care costs, Dan Fogel is getting health insurance and a wellness plan. When he is finished his exceedingly well-paid vacation he is guaranteed a job at a salary well above others doing the same work at the same place.

Many of us express concern about increasing economic inequality. We decry CEOs who make obscene salaries while working families struggle. Yet, you are giving this guy more each month to do nothing than many Vermonters will make for 12 months of hard work. Those of us concerned about the rising cost of a college education will have an awfully hard time explaining this to Vermont parents and students.

Legislative representatives to the UVM Board, especially those who voted for a state budget that was balanced on the backs of working families and those in need, should have voted no on this outrageous package. You could have made it a teachable moment. You could have made UVM an example of a better way of doing things. You could have been a voice of reason. You could have spoke up for students and families, and for common sense. I am disappointed you missed the opportunity to do the right thing.

I voted no on this year’s tax and budget bills because they raise taxes on the middle class, increase health care costs and cut important programs without asking the wealthiest to make any sacrifices at all. As usual, middle class working families and our neighbors in need will bear the biggest burden.

Most of the taxes are “provider” taxes on hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies and health and dental insurance claims – costs passed thru to you and me. These broad based taxes will hit most Vermonters regardless of income or ability to pay. And will raise health care costs when we should be cutting them. The budget also includes $34 million in human services cuts, including “prevention” programs — so problems get worse and costs go up.

I offered a different proposal; a small, temporary increase in the income tax of those in the highest tax brackets, the folks enjoying huge savings from the so-called Bush (now Obama) tax cuts. Unlike the broad based provider taxes the surcharge affects about 4,000, all of whom can afford to pay. It would not raise taxes on people making less than $200,000.

Under the proposal someone making $200,000 to $300,000, currently enjoying a $10,400 tax cut, would pay $580 more and still enjoy $10,000 in savings. Their effective tax rate would increase less than 1 percent. By the way, someone making $1 million will enjoy a tax cut of $157,000 this tear. In fact, the wealthiest 5% of Vermonters will enjoy a tax cut of $190 million. Why not ask them to send a small piece of their windfall back home to help neighbors in need?

Polls in Vermont show overwhelming support for closing our budget gap by increasing the income tax of those in the highest brackets. We applauded when Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy and Peter Welch fought to end the Bush tax cuts calling them unfair and bad for the economy and job growth. But, despite their efforts, Congress failed.

Vermonters can do better. But most of your policymakers say no, claiming the wealthy, especially entrepreneurs, will leave if asked to pay their fair share.

Our Vermont Blue Ribbon Tax Commission and recent documented studies say they are wrong.

Princeton University researchers found the wealthiest did not leave New Jersey when their taxes were raised. In fact, they ended up with more millionaires than before the tax increase. And, those who started and owned businesses were least likely to leave. The impact of tax increases on the wealthy moving out of state was, “close to zero.”

Tracking years of migration in New England, University of Massachusetts researchers said, “Taxes have essentially no impact on causing people to leave a state.”

People mostly move for job-related reasons, regardless of taxes and the wealthy stay in high tax states because they appreciate the services and quality of life.

If we want our local businesses to grow jobs we need to give them customers. That means the middle class needs money to spend. But our economic policies do the opposite, favoring the rich while leaving less for the middle class.

Recently a group of wealthy Vermonters wrote our governor urging an increase in their taxes. They echoed the studies, polls and common sense, saying; “People like us, with good jobs and careers in Vermont, would not leave our homes, friends, careers and the state we love if asked to pay a bit more to help our neighbors.” They said asking everyone to pay their fair share is the, “Vermont way.” I agree.