Similar to past years when there was significant disagreement between one, two and/or three of the negotiating parties (House, Senate, Governor), this time,  the end-of-session discussions are filled with bluffs, counter-bluffs, and political maneuvering. Also similar to past sessions, the “real” discussions did not start until the clock for the legislative session was about to run out - even with earlier timelines, the tough negotiations don’t seem to happen until absolutely necessary - a week before the legislative session must adjourn their “regular” session. 

This year is much different, however. The size of the budget deficit and the almost desperate measures being taken to try and “solve” this budget deficit without causing serious harm to any groups has proven to be a nearly insurmountable challenge. Nearly all of the focus has been on finding savings at any cost in order to prevent hard reductions, even if the estimated savings to be achieved are questionable at best. 

As I sit here writing this, there have been several “arrows” shot up in the air already to see where they would land: 

1. A tax increase bill tied directly to increased funding for the “top three”: nursing homes, hospitals and K-12 education. This arrow was stopped by a veto within hours of receipt by the Governor;

2. A health and human services bill that reduces expenditures from forecast by over $500 million, yet the reductions are far short of what the Governor says they need to make. We are waiting to see what the Governor will do with this bill, but if traditional follows, he will exercise his veto authority again; and

3. A second version of this same health and human services omnibus budget bill has shown up but with a horrendous difference: an additional $400 million in reductions, half from a 25% rate reduction to long-term care facilities. This bill has yet to be voted on but without agreement on additional revenues, there will need to be more reductions to the health and human services budget. We obviously testified against this proposal, strongly warning the committee that reductions of this size would close all facilities, unless they pulled out of the Medicaid program. We don’t believe that this will be the end result but are very uncomfortable with being one of the arrows in the quiver.

It all comes down to this: even with federal stimulus funds, there is a $4.6 billion budget hole for this upcoming biennium. This gap cannot be filled by cuts alone or the result for us will be dramatic and devastating. The health and human services arena is about 1/3 of the state’s budget so simple math means there would need to be at least $500 million more in reductions in our area. There needs to be additional revenue added to the equation: increased taxes, fees, surcharges, or whatever else you want to call them. Just shifting the gap to next biennium only delays the tough decisions for 1-2 years when we already see a continuation of the budget shortfall and when there will be no federal stimulus money to fall back on. We need more, real money today to solve this budget crisis.

Comments?