Sandy Haas

Blowing Up the Bridge Out of Poverty

Submitted by Rep. Sandy Haas on Mon, 2013-02-18 22:04

The most distressing aspect of the Administration’s proposal to limit Reach Up benefits is that it will defeat, rather than advance, our goal of moving people out of poverty.  Passed as part of the national welfare reform efforts in the 1990s (remember President Clinton’s vow to “end welfare as we know it”?), Vermont’s Reach Up program is designed to get people into the workforce and permanently out of poverty.  One of the most important programs in our overall welfare-to-work design is the Post-Secondary Education Program.

Because (incredibly!) Federal law does not allow “work participation” credit for college, Vermont set up a separate state-funded program to allow Reach Up recipients (mostly very young women) to attend college, raise their small children and receive Reach Up support while doing so.  The success rate for this cohort has been impressive.  Not only do young mothers then stay out of poverty, they actually earn a livable wage (which is more than twice the minimum wage).

For reasons as yet unclear, the Department for Children & Families (DCF) is apparently reluctant to advise new welfare recipients that this option even exists.  House Human Services heard testimony last week from a mother who already has an AA degree and is taking classes to become a nurse.  Unfortunately, none of the time she spends taking class, preparing for class, or traveling to class (tedious because our public transportation is so inadequate) counts toward the work requirement for her Reach Up grant.  As a result, her family is now at risk of being “sanctioned,” that is, having their monthly food and shelter grant reduced.  Just to put this in perspective, the “full” grant is just 49% of what a family actually needs to get by in Vermont.  So this mother may have to give up school to accept a fast food job.

The Governor’s plan to throw families off Reach Up in October if they have received 36 months of cumulative benefits would further undermine peoples’ ability to move out of poverty.  Either the parents will take low-wage jobs (if any jobs are open) or they and their children will slide further into poverty, possibly homelessness.

Press Release: Progressive alternative funding sources

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Thu, 2013-02-14 15:14

Progressives have pushed for a greater investment in childcare, higher education, student loan forgiveness, weatherization and clean energy for years, so it was encouraging to hear Governor Shumlin promote these initiatives in his state budget.

While we applaud his priorities, many of us across the state find his funding proposals detached from the economic reality of our neighbors. They are an insult to the working families of our state.

Take a look at this snapshot provided by Thom Kavet in his annual revenue summary prepared for JFO, which shows the change in income by income class for Vermonters over the past 10 years.

2001-2011 Income Growrth

The median household income in Vermont is $53,000. That is, half of Vermont households are on the top half of this chart and half are on the bottom. Given that, I think most reasonable people would look at this and conclude that any new sources of revenue have to come from the top half.

Gov. Shumlin seems to think it’s those living in the bottom half who should pay up.

Today, we present nine revenue options that draw from those on the top half of this chart. We present a package totaling $50 million and hope it will stimulate discussion and inspire legislative leaders to find ways to advance Shumlin’s priorities without hurting those who can least afford it.

Progressive Revenue Menu

1.    Bank Franchise Tax (pay higher of BFT or corporate income)     $5.0 million
       currently 0.000096 of the average monthly deposit
       banks have expanded into services, etc

2.    Tax capital gains as ordinary income                                       $11.0 million
        currently exempt first $5,000

3.    Property Transfer Tax per 0.25% value > $500K                         $1.5 million
       adds 3rd tier for high-value properties

4.    Estate Tax – reduce exemption from $2.75 to $1 million             $1.9 million
       brings into line with neighboring states

5.    Income Tax Top Bracket Collapse                                           $20.0 million
       brings actual rates closer to marginal rates

6.    Vermont Alternative Minimum Tax                                          $1.0 million
       parallel’s federal structure

7.    Escheat (unclaimed bottle deposits)                                      $1-2 million
       reclaim the nickels

8.    Natural Resources Extraction Taxes
       Groundwater extraction 28 cents per gallon                          $4.5 million
       Earth Resources extraction 2 cents per cubic yard
       We are one of only 11 states without one

9.    Eliminate Sales Tax Exemptions
       Bottled Water                                                                    $1.0 million
       Clothing > $100                                                                  $2.2 million
       We don’t need bottled water
       People buying $120 sweater can afford $7.20

A Distressing Pattern

Submitted by Rep. Sandy Haas on Mon, 2013-02-04 01:00

As we examine the Governor’s budget proposal for the coming fiscal year, we see a distressing pattern.  For years we have passed new initiatives that promised both better outcomes for Vermonters and cost savings over time.  Then the state has failed to follow through with the investment necessary to accomplish those goals. 

The most glaring example of an initiative that is continually shortchanged is Choices for Care, the program that allows frail elders to remain at home rather than going to a nursing home.  Nearly everyone wants to stay in their own homes if they can, and the savings are obvious.  A year in a nursing home can cost over $64,000; robust services in the community cost about $30,000. 

By design and legislation, that differential was intended to allow a larger number of people to get the care they need.  The hope was that each year the percentage of people being served in their communities would increase.  We were also going to invest in building the community support network by training new people and gradually increasing their pay to a livable wage.  Somehow, regardless of administration, we seem unable to get there.  The “savings” becomes just too irresistible when we need money in other programs.

The More Things Change...

Submitted by Rep. Sandy Haas on Mon, 2013-01-28 01:00

After several years of budget recommendations from Governor Douglas that proposed cuts to Reach Up, Vermont’s welfare program, it’s startling to see Gov. Shumlin requesting even more draconian cuts.  Specifically, he is asking the legislature to limit eligibility to three consecutive years (with a five-year lifetime limit).  It is important to note that Reach Up is a program available only to families with minor children, so when a parent is cut off, children lose funds for food, clothing and shelter.

Even more distressing is the fact that many Reach Up recipients are “child only” cases.  These are families where the parent does not qualify for some reason, often where a grandparent is serving as guardian.  It is yet unclear how the proposal will affect those children.  A three year limit for a six-year-old would leave a serious gap.  As we dig into the policy implications of these proposed cuts, the House Human Services committee will be looking closely at such questions.

Action Alert: Call the Governor Today!

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Thu, 2013-01-17 09:56

Fellow Progressives,

On Tuesday, Progressive Legislators held a press conference at the Statehouse to express their concerns about Governor Peter Shumlin’s proposal to divert millions of dollars from the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit program, an extremely effective anti-poverty program.  Although Progressives share the Governor’s goals of universal Pre-K and more affordable and accessible Higher-Ed, they have substantial concerns about funding these programs with what amounts to a tax increase for thousands of working Vermonters.

Will you join our Legislators in standing up for working families by calling the Governor today at 802-828-3333 and letting him know you don’t support this funding scheme?  You can also email him here.

Diverting money from the Earned Income Tax Credit shifts funds away from those who need it the most.  It is a new tax that hits lower-income Vermonters hardest.  Some may say this is not a broad-based tax.  But it is worse.  It is a tax targeted at those least able to afford it: low-income Vermonters, working families, and others struggling to make ends meet.  It is tax that would affect over 40,000 Vermonters.  The Earned Income Tax Credit is recognized as one of the most effective anti-poverty programs in Vermont.  Cutting it contradicts our focus on building a state budget that puts people first.

Rather than tax those who are least able to afford it, our Progressive Legislators are asking the Administration to take the time to look at other funding options.  Will you join their effort by contacting Governor Shumlin at 802-828-3333 today?

Thank you for all you do.

Sincerely,

Robert Millar
Executive Director

Progs slam Shumlin over plan to fund childcare by cutting benefits to poor

January 15, 2013; Peter Hirschfeld; Vermont Press Bureau

A group of Progressive lawmakers this afternoon took an aggressive stance against Peter Shumlin’s first high-profile proposal of 2013, saying his “half-baked” plan to fund new childcare subsidies would “pit working families against one another.”

Shumlin won plaudits last week for proposing that Vermont spend an additional $17 million on childcare subsidies for low-income parents. But his plan to fund it – reducing an “earned income tax credit” that now delivers refund checks to more than 40,000 low-income tax filers – has drawn a scathing rebuke.

At a press conference in the Cedar Creek room, Rep. Chris Pearson, a Burlington Progressive, said it can’t be considered a “serious proposal.”

"I have yet to hear from any Democrat who supports this idea. Republicans have articulated their concerns, and Progressives are solidly opposed to this funding scheme,” Pearson said.

Read the whole article >>

Legislative preview: Human services committees will look at elder abuse reporting, children and family services

January 6, 2013; Alicia Freese; VTDigger

Leaders from both the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare and the House Committee on Human Services say they’ll take another stab at a bill Shumlin vetoed last session. The legislation — H.290 — would have required that the Adult Protective Service (APS) division report to the Legislature on elder abuse on a monthly rather than annual basis. It was introduced in response to a backlog in investigations of elder abuse that had bogged down the Adult Protective Services (APS) division and prompted a lawsuit filed by Vermont Legal Aid.

Doug Racine, the secretary of human services, said the law would impose an undue burden on the agency and create a “distraction” from its actual investigations. Gov. Peter Shumlin vetoed the bill.

Sandy Haas, vice chair of the House Committee on Human Services, said she and other lawmakers who worked on the legislation were surprised by the governor’s veto. “We were amazed by that. Since they [members of the Shumlin administration] sat with us at the table and, item by item, said they could do it.”

Read the whole article >>

Representative Sandy Haas, Rochester

Sandy has been a consistent voice for tax reform and small business. She is an articulate voice for the needs of small towns across the state and one of the leaders on the death with dignity bill. Sandy is the Vice-Chair of the House Human Services Committee. Sandy represents the district of Windsor-Rutland-2, which includes the towns of Bethel, Pittsfield, Rochester, and Stockbridge.

Pragmatism or Purity: Is "Fusion" Good for the Progressive Party?

September 26, 2012; Seven Days; Kevin Kelley

It’s unquestionable that the existence of the Progressive Party over the past decades has had a huge impact on policy in Vermont.

Read the full article >>

Sandy Haas for House: Windsor-Rutland

Sandy Haas is running for re-election to represent the towns of Bethel, Pittsfield, Rochester, and Stockbridge. First elected in 2004, Sandy is the Vice-Chair of the Human Services Committee, and sits on the Government Accountability Committee, Corrections Oversight Committee, and Legislative Committee on Judicial Rules. Sandy and her committee spent a lot of time this session working on how the state will deliver mental healthcare post-Waterbury. She has also been a leader on end-of-life issues, such as advance directives and palliative care.

Syndicate content