InterHab review of Gov. Brownback's budget recommendations

InterHab Executive Director Tom Laing
 analyzes Gov. Brownback's budget plan 

The first review of the Governor’s budget recommendations is in, and the projections are not good, and also, not so bad.

The cautionary note is this – that in order for the relatively low-pain budget that has been proposed to actually come true it will require multiple difficult legislative actions to be successfully undertaken. Such difficult tasks include legislative adoption of a very controversial school funding plan, the passage of more than 100 million in new excise taxes (on liquor and tobacco), and very challenging KPERS funding recommendations which would negate some of the recent work done to strengthen the financial health of the retirement fund.  In other words, in order to get even the paltry budget outcomes which are recommended it will require dozens of other pieces of the puzzle to fall into place.

From a briefing InterHab staff received from KDADS last Friday, this is some of what we learned:

First, to summarize some the budget items which we reported Friday:

1. The only recommended cut to community funding is in the area of CDDO administration in FY 2016, in the amount of $350 thousand in reduced SGF match, which means that the full loss of that cut, however, will be around $650 thousand (SGF and Federal dollars combined).
2. New funding is proposed to serve additional persons from the IDD waiting list, totaling around $6.7 million, all funds.
3. Also noted in the Governor’s statements is the note that dollars which were obligated this current year to “eliminate” the “under-served” list would remain in the base to serve those persons in the coming two year budget cycle. (This claim is intended to prompt applause, no doubt, but all it really says is that the Administration will not pull the plug on new services. From a current perspective, it is not likely they could get permission from CMS which essentially ordered the underserved list to be eliminated; from an historical perspective, this is not a newsworthy item, since no Administration has thrown persons with IDD out of services.) 

Some additional insight into the KDADS perspective:

1. The cuts for CDDOs are proposed by KDADS because they, along with all other State departments, were directed to come up with proposed cuts. 
2. When the decision was made to NOT cut services that left State Aid and CDDO administration as the only two remaining alternatives for IDD system cuts.  Why were CDDO cuts chosen and not State Aid? Because, as we understand it, legislative budget cutting ideas already include cutting state aid. 

Some additional items to follow: 

1. Pay attention to the programmatic shifts between DCF to KDHE. Not sure what is afoot, but all Foster Care licensing is not going to DCF, and all Medicaid eligibility is shifting to KDHE. 
2. School funding plans – in the face of stern court scrutiny – appear positioned to dodge the court rather than obey the court.  With the court saying that the schools are not being funded in compliance with the current law, the Administration is saying “OK, let’s change the law!”  
3. And, finally, despite the belief by everyone (except the Administration and the Easter Bunny) that income tax cuts are at the root of the revenue crisis, there will be no meaningful rollback of income tax cuts. 

Thoughts from InterHab advocacy perspectives?

1. No cuts have yet been made, and many legislators in both parties are reluctant to whack the heck out of any budget merely to protect tax cuts for the rich. So .. DO NOT fall into the trap of believing that cuts are inevitable. 
2. NOW not later is the time to let your legislators know your perspectives on this matter. 
3. TOMORROW for SURE we need your active voices involved with those of your InterHab Colleagues at our Issues Forum and Board Meeting.