Sequestration: A Cut for Montco's Seniors
Part Two of a Four-Part Series: How budget cuts may impact local senior citizens.
Sequestration in Montgomery County
Follow Patch's four-part series on the impact of Sequestration on Montgomery County.
David Powell
Photos (1)
Photos
Another 24 hours is lost, and Congress has yet to agree on a plan that would stop sequestration. The automated budget cuts will deliver a hit to Montgomery County programs, including those designed to assist area senior citizens.
In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, House Speaker John Boehner said the cuts would be a product of Obama's "failed leadership."
"Most Americans are just hearing about this Washington creation for the first time: the sequester," Boehner writes in his column. "What they might not realize from Mr. Obama's statements is that it is a product of the president's own failed leadership. There is nothing wrong with cutting spending that much -- we should be cutting even more -- but the sequester is an ugly and dangerous way to do it."
But how would these federal goverment budget reductions impact local citizens? Montgomery County's senior citizens might be hardest hit. There are more than 225,000 residents over age 55 in Montgomery County, making it the county with the highest median age in the southeastern region of the state.
According to a White House press release, "Pennsylvania would lose approximately $849,000 in funds that provide meals for seniors."
Joanne Kline, executive director of the Montgomery County Aging and Adult Services department said that such a cut would greatly impact her programs.
"Area agencies on aging are funded by these very important funding 'strings,' and we're all in the same boat," explained Kline. She said that all Greater Philadelphia's surrounding county departments, including those in Bucks, Chester and Delaware counties, would also be hurt.
"We are waiting to hear when funds are allocated to the state, what will come down to us," she said.
One of the most crucial programs Kline fears may be impacted is the home-delivered meals program.
"It is so crucial for those that are unable to make their own meals," she said. "It is a huge nutritional issue. It keeps these people well and healthy."
Kline said assistance with meals can often be one of the first "accepted" services a senior will allow when his or her health begins to change.
"It is our most important program, and growing continually," she said.
While the home-delivered meals programs are largely operated by volunteer efforts, Kline's department relies on federal funding for the purchasing of the food. In 2012, the department delivered 247,131 meals to home clients, and 74,000 "congregate meals" (or those served in a nursing facility).
"We get nutritional money handed down through the state from Harrisburg," she said. "We are also assisted with lottery funds that come down to us. It is all a part of an allocation from the Department of Aging."
Reduced funds, Kline noted, would likely cause a waiting list to grow, meaning fewer seniors would be provided with meals.
"In Montgomery County, we have a growing list for those in home care," said Kline. "We have 200 on a waiting list, and most of those just need a bath and some in-home care."
With more reductions to funding, Kline estimates 20 to 30 more would be added to that waiting list for home-delivered meals.
"If that is all they needed, it is very sad," she said. "One of our most effective programs, and it is run by volunteers. All we need is that money for meals, and it goes a long way to keep folks at home and independent."
Cuts in funding would go beyond the home-delivered meals program, too. Kline noted that other areas of concern are for the Family Caregivers Support Program and the Ombudsman Program.
"Federal money which comes down is important," said Kline. "It protects folks from elder abuse and neglect cases. It is one of our most critical programs."
As presure also comes from a change in the Pennsylvania Lottery system, with a Gov. Tom Corbett-created plan to privatize the system, Kline worries that both of her major sources of funding would be up in the air.
"We are absolutely in favor of any program to increase our fudning to allow for more services, at a time when our population is growing so dramatically," she said. "We simply ask 'Are there ways we can look at different kinds of service dollars to fund these growing needs?'"
For part one in the series, read this story.
Will these changes impact you?
Tell us in the comments.
Joe
12:48 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
So the net impact of cutting $840k for 225k people is $4 per peerson - FOUR DOLLARS! And this is the end of the world?
Melissa Treacy
1:53 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Well that is true, except that is funding reduction is JUST for the meals programs. In other words, of the 321,131 MEALS served last year, you'd have to deduct about $2.63 PER meal (if they wanted to serve the same number of meals in 2013), which WOULD be a pretty hefty impact to those relying on the program.
Ken
3:09 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Sounds like it's time to do a little fund raising. I imagine they are registered as a non-profit? Where can donations be sent?
Melissa Treacy
3:19 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Each home-delivered meal service program is operated in unique communities, but here is how you can reach each one: http://mcaas.montcopa.org/mcaas/cwp/view,a,1505,q,57352.asp
Lee
4:24 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
To be fair aren't some in the press also saying that the WH is scaring people, that our federal budget will still be larger in 2013 than it was in 2012? There is no guarantee that this funding will be cut. The Dem leaders with the help of major left media are out manuevering the go-along-to-get-along Repubs who roll over and accept demonization so easily.
concerned US citizen
7:31 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Just think. Barack and Michelle and the rest of their royal family spent more on their last trip (one of the so many they've enjoyed at taxpayers expense). Just their last trip alone would have done more than feed the seniors in Montgomery County had rhe funds gone there instead of the Obamas' lavish lifestyle.
Smedley
7:53 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Right. George Bush never went on a trip at the taxpayers expense. And I'm not an obama fan if that's what you're thinking.
John Q. Public
8:46 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Smedley, yes and so did George Washington. The difference is one of BHO's Hawaii trips costs as much as all GWB's trips, and BHO has been the vacationer-in-chief. If he wasn't demanding sacrifice from the taxpayers to finance his vacations, I'd not mind.
fiscal sanity
7:47 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
cut foreign aid, that saves $700 billion right off the top.
Smedley
7:57 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
I'll drink to that ! While we're at it lets cut the automatic raises they get every year, the premium health care they and they're families get for life, and the number of terms they can serve.
concerned US citizen
8:06 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
I'll drink to that! And while they're at it, maybe the President can actually put an honest day's work in and stop acting like the celebrity king jettsetting around the world with celebs and playing golf with Tiger. Does anyone know how many days old Barry has actuallu worked? He's so out of touch and so is anyone else who can't see it.
Tom Bartman
8:46 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Stop scaring people. Sequestration does not cut spending. It reduces the rate of growth. Tell the truth, media. Sequester cuts $42 billion. Sandy relief bill was $60 billion. Again, tell the truth.
Tom Bartman
8:55 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Liberals fear sequester for one reason. I will fall short on calling it cuts to spending because they are not spending cuts, but rather a reduction in growth rate. When the sequester hits happen and liberals/progressives see that the world still operates, people will realize that you CAN make cuts to out of control spending.
Rather, they'll spread fear. What's next? The Schuylkill river will stop flowing if sequester kicks in? Stop the scare. Sequester is a media-generated scare tactic. This morning, our national debt hit $16,600,000,000,000. 16.6 TRILLION! Cutting $42 billion is less than 0.25%. Please stop the nonsense scare tactics.
Tom Bartman
9:13 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
"According to a White House press release, "Pennsylvania would lose approximately $849,000 in funds that provide meals for seniors." -- Pssst. The government is not your mother!!! Why can't Pennsylvania fund this themselves? Find one American family that has not had to make cuts to deal with financial issues.
Ronald Maerz Jr
9:16 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
He is in non stop campaign mode and would rather divide and conquer then come up with real solutions that would start to help our great country get back on it's feet. We need to get our fiscal house in order and I would start by eliminating all of the money we spend on the silly research projects for goldfish mating, turtle crossings and the like. How many millions are wasted every year on ridiculous studies like this? The other area of waste we should combat is fraud. Too many people receive SSI disabilty for life who after they qualify turn around and either start their own business or go to work under the table. They claim they are too disabled to work but they somehow manage to do so illegally, double dipping and ripping off the honest working people. Food stamp fraud and corrupt politicians should also be investigated. Millions upon millions of dollars could be saved. If we did a better job of managing our money we could help those who are truely in need without being trillions of dollars in debt. We need to stop what we are doing because the system is broke. Start with focusing on fraud, greed and wasteful spending!
Tom Bartman
9:45 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
So it is ok for the president to spend $800 billion on a stimulus, take over ONE THIRD of the US economy (Obamacare), spend $60 billion in Sandy relief aid, send BILLIONS to Egypt, millions in failed 'green energy' investments - yet we'll sit here and moan and gripe over reducing the rate of spending by $42 billion?
Curmudgeon
10:40 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
@Ms, Treacy: You reported a quote from the White House, but did you do any research into the validity of the White House's statement. As Mr. Bartman says, and I repeat, you, sic: reporters in general fail to challange this White House and this President on their outlandish statements. 800,000 civilians laided off in the Defense Dept., that $800,000,000 per week, $21 Billion in 6 months, beside all the other distruptions promised. Really??!!! I know you guys had to take some math course in college. I think the Delaware will flow backwards after the sequestration. Look out New Hope!!
Mike Shortall
11:18 am on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Keep in mind that sequestration was the brain-child of The White House, blessed by President Obama before presented to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as part of the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations.
Wynnewoodie
12:10 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
The Obama administration floated the super committee and sequester as last ditch tactics to convince House Republicans to raise the debt limit and avoid further downgrade of the US credit rating. But whether this came from the White House or over their objections is irrelevant because we don't live in a dictatorship. Only Congress can pass laws, so the relevant question is: who voted for it? There the record is clear: 218 Republican representatives voted for the sequester. It also passed the Democratically controlled Senate, and was signed by President Obama. So for anyone in Washington to claim that the sequester isn't their fault is dishonest.
Mike Shortall
1:45 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Wynnewoodie: My point is that The President, with his almost daily White House press releases of budgetary doom 'n gloom and the deep impact warnings for individual States, is being most disingenuous with his hair-on-fire attempts to blame House Republicans.
The sequestration was his (The White House's) original idea; initially broached by Jack Lew and Ron Nabor. They proposed it as part of debt ceiling negotiations. It's their ugly baby.
And we're stuck in this position because The President reneged on his pledge to consider serious budget cuts after he won the fiscal cliff face-off in January.
Wynnewoodie
5:54 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
And John Boehner & the House Republicans are being disingenuous when they refer to the sequester and the "Obamaquester" or whatever unclever thing they're calling it today. Back in August of 2011, Boehner was bragging that he got 98% of what he wanted out of the sequester. He and his caucus voted for it, so it's as much their baby as the President's.
As for who is negotiating seriously or in good faith, that's in the eye of the beholder. Gerrymandering has created the unfortunate situation where few members of congress need ever fear a general election; all they fear is the primary. The practical consequence is that few members of congress have the courage to even entertain the sort of compromises that are essential for bipartisan governance for fear of inviting primary challengers. Where this leaves us is with two parties standing firm on "principle" and blaming the other for inflexibility and inaction.
The Obama administration needed the sequester to get the debt ceiling raised. The Republicans were confident that they would win the White House in 2012, and the supercommittee/sequester gave them a way of putting the kibosh on spending until after the 2012 election. Obama's re-election means we're right back where we were in 2011.
Come March 1st, lots of hardworking, productive people on the federal payroll are going to be furloughed or fired. It's too bad that the do-nothings in Congress won't be given pink-slips instead.
Mike Shortall
6:54 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Of course the Republicans in Congress accepted the sequestration, it was the only mechanism offered - by the Democrats and The White House - that was supposed to ensure that SOMEBODY addressed the spending problem after Obama rejected his own Simpson-Bowles recommendations.
The sequestration concept for that 2011 compromise was born in The White House!
Wynnewoodie
9:45 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Mike, what is to be gained by repeating the same misleading irrelevancy over and over again? The sequester is the law of the land because it was passed by the Republican-controlled House AND the Democratically-controlled Senate AND signed by President Obama. They are all responsible for the sequester.
As for Simpson-Bowles, it was the House that rejected it -- by a vote of 382 - 38.
Mike Shortall
10:40 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
1.My point is simply that sequestration - with all the wailing The White House is doing about drastic cuts, lost services, lost income and business - was The White House's idea!
2. Bob Woodward - stalwart Liberal ally - called out The President for lying about the idea originating in Congress.
3. You're right. Congress did reject Simpson-Bowles by a margin of votes (382-38) which kinda proves the White House didn't support its own debt commission findings.
Mike Shortall
10:45 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Forgot to include the Woodward link: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/bob-woodward-obama-owns-sequestration-87978.html?hp=l1
Also, Woodward claims The White House threatened him over his reporting on the sequester: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/27/bob-woodward-says-he-was-threatened-by-white-house/?hpt=hp_t2
Glenn
12:27 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
It's all about Republican obstructionism and their lies.
Ken
1:29 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Glenn, what lie?
Curmudgeon
1:57 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
I thought Patrick=moron
but Glenn has joined the club.
Glenn=moron
Smedley
10:18 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
As usual brainwashed republicans and democrats believe the other is the cause of all the problems when both are equally to blame. Keep it up it's working beautifully. It's exactly what they want.
Republicans Democrats = Business as Usual
Tom Bartman
10:49 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013
It'll be interesting in the morning to see which media outlets cover the Woodward story. Journalism today is a joke.
jxjipper
10:48 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
What is Obama gonna say when nobody notices anything different. It's time for the American public to start to call his bluff before he spends our great grand-kids into debt as well. How are we going to afford to build Captain Kirk's Enterprise by 2245 if we're broke. Launched in 2245, the original and illustrious starship U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 was built in the San Francisco Yards orbiting Earth.
NC Tramontina
10:24 am on Saturday, March 2, 2013
Who's fault is it? Who cares? This fighting is not fixing of our problems. Its a cover for the immaturity and incompetence of our elected officials. ALL OF THEM. The point is we have daunting problems facing our country and NOBODY has the guts, brains, or leadership qualifications to effectively address them so, we keep doing the same things over and over again hoping for a different outcome. Isn't that the definition of insanity? We are doomed as a nation b/c we are a divided nation. I hate saying this but I fear we don't have the morality or intelligence in DC or across our country, for that matter, to right this ship.