2008
Week 11
March 22, 2008

Hi

Tax cuts, anyone?

It is a worthy subject, as taxes do become a load, especially on some citizens. However, we have had a lesson this week in how expensive trimming can be.

Our Beatrice Home provides residential care for severely retarded and developmentally disabled persons. Usually, the family is not able to provide adequate care in severe cases. Also as background, understand that patients are under regular review to determine if they could possibly receive appropriate care in the community, as in a group home. That is much less expensive, and could be more comfortable for the patient. Or not.

Most of the cost of residential care, in whatever setting, is provided by the federal government. Beatrice is receiving $28 million a year from the feds, much less from the state. Nebraska is tight fisted. For several years the Feds have said the patients are not getting adequate care and for the last two years have threatened to withdraw all funds. The responses of the governor and the department have included holding down salaries. When the legislature learned that newer employees were leaving to go to work for Burger King, where the pay was better and the work easier, we ordered that pay be increased. We can give those orders, but we do not like to, as that is micromanaging a dept.

This winter the Feds served last notice that they are not impressed. The department hired a firm to do something impressive. The Feds are still not impressed and we are in a bigtime crisis. The legislature had authorized merit pay for good employees and year end bonuses. None was given.

So, to reduce the expense of staff the governor and the department decided to reduce the census at Beatrice from 300 to 200, by the end of the year. Still holding down wages, but bringing additional workers in from other institutions, like Vets Homes. Which are already short of staff. None of my comment is intended to be critical of our execs, as this is the way we do business in government. Each governor is told by the people to cut taxes. They do. We have excellent, committed people trying to an impossible job.

This week, the Feds pointed to their latest finding. A woman in her fifties, severely retarded and unable to talk or walk, broke both legs and was not taken to a hospital for 3 to 5 days. She is bedfast. It probably happened using a lift for bathing her. Possibly the lift was placed improperly, breaking her bones, or she was dropped. If improper use, an untrained worker may not know it happened. More likely, workers were afraid to report the incident as happening on their shift.

The surgeon at the hospital reported, the Feds heard, and the family, which has been especially supportive of the home and grateful for a lifetime of care, has sued for $1.8 million. We have been told the lawsuits for the negligent care could run into the hundreds of millions. No one can really estimate it. But we will pay. Taxes, at the minimum, will go up ten times what it would have cost to increase pay for trained, experienced help. Instead of $5 per taxpayer, $50?

There is more. Worse. We have a waiting list of 1,300 families needing services. (Not all for residential care.) The crisis plan is to reduce capacity from 300 to 200. ?! Elderly parents are in panic. After they die could their sixty-year-old daughter be dumped? Answer: no. But the unwarranted fear is there.

The outrage in our legislative debate could be felt in the whole building. We went past our adjournment time by two hours as senators of both parties expressed their shock and intense frustration. The typical statement was that these citizens cannot help themselves, are totally in our care. We are failing to provide that care and needing to cut budget is not an excuse.

I find the statements remarkable. Forty years ago we would not have any consensus like this. We would have blamed the families or the communities or the churches for not taking care of their own. This is a new announcement of an agreement I have not heard before. Now we say the care for a person can be beyond the capabilities of the family and when that happens we as a state are responsible for adequate care. Remarkable.

The other fuss this week was on aid to local schools. We pay about 1/3 of local school expenses, to hold down property taxes. It is by formula, to level the field between small and large districts, between sparse and dense population areas, between districts which are growing and those that are shrinking, between those with a large tax base and those with a smaller base, between those with more grade school students (lower cost) and with more high school students (higher cost) and with second language students (still higher cost). The formula is very complex. It has taken years to tune it.

We are adjusting it again. To oversimplify, local situations change. Schools with fewer students do not have a standard per capita reduction in cost because the overhead of the building remains the same. Also, those filing their figures check the formula and move their columns around to get the most benefit. It is not dishonest -- it is creative. So we do not know how a new formula will work until creative folks file.

There was a huge spike up for next year, after the calculations. Over 17%. We cannot afford that, so factors were adjusted when we saw where the spike came from. That will cause some schools to lose more money than others. Howls in one corner, smiles in the other. Our response to all is that the new formula is more fair. Some who howled have been receiving more than was fair. Surprise -- they do not want to give up the surplus.

On average, we are increasing school payments by about 9%. Most of that could go to teacher pay, but that decision is up to the local school. Nebraska pay is #44 among the states.

Please Lord, can we have a quieter week coming up? Let's see. Death penalty. Oh.

Lowen