Vermont Impacts of Sequestration

Here’s a handy guide to expected changes and cuts in Vermont due to sequestration going into effect today, courtesy of the White House.


“If sequestration were to take effect, some examples of the impacts on Vermont this year alone are:

Teachers and Schools: Vermont will lose approximately $1,128,000 in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 20 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 2,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 10 fewer schools would receive funding.

Education for Children with Disabilities: In addition, Vermont will lose approximately $1,440,000 in funds for about 20 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities. Work-Study Jobs: Around 30 fewer low income students in Vermont would receive aid to help them finance the costs of college and around 100 fewer students will get work-study jobs that help them pay for college.

Head Start: Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 100 children in Vermont, reducing access to critical early education.

Protections for Clean Air and Clean Water: Vermont would lose about $1,068,000 in environmental funding to ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from pesticides and hazardous waste. In addition, Vermont could lose another $359,000 in grants for fish and wildlife protection.

Military Readiness: In Vermont, approximately 1,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $2.9 million in total.

Army: Base operation funding would be cut by about $1 million in Vermont.

Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds for Crime Prevention and Prosecution: Vermont will lose about $33,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

Job Search Assistance to Help those in Vermont find Employment and Training: Vermont will lose about $101,000 in funding for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning around 3,780 fewer people will get the help and skills they need to find employment.

Child Care: Up to 100 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.

Vaccines for Children: In Vermont around 760 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations of about $52,000.

Public Health: Vermont will lose approximately $331,000 in funds to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events. In addition, Vermont will lose about $270,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 500 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Vermont Department of Health will lose about $55,000 resulting in around 1,400 fewer HIV tests.

STOP Violence Against Women Program: Vermont could lose up to $13,000 in funds that provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 100 fewer victims being served. Nutrition Assistance for Seniors: Vermont would lose approximately $204,000 in funds that provide meals for seniors.”


There are additional national cuts that will also impact the state. For a full report, check out this guide to sequestration at the Washington Post.

Comments | 9

  • Major banks are profitable because of our bailouts

    Bloomberg News has a very interesting debate going.

    Basically they point out that the size of the sequester cuts is about equal to the amount given to banks, which, coincidentally, is about equal to what they claim as profits.

    So what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?

    They do tell us that. And more.

     In other words, the banks occupying the commanding heights of the U.S. financial industry — with almost $9 trillion in assets, more than half the size of the U.S. economy — would just about break even in the absence of corporate welfare. In large part, the profits they report are essentially transfers from taxpayers to their shareholders.

    Well, gee. Any one of us could boast millions of dollars of profits if it was given to us as a gift. (I’m happy to demonstrate if someone wants to send me $83 billion or so.)

    The sequester and cuts are not what is currently needed. To get the economy going, Congress needs to send everyone $20,000 in cash. Right now, and again next year. It’s easy to do and what governments are supposed to do to get the economy going again.

    Give everyone free money (just print it) and we’ll see spending again. Debts will be paid, and new purchases will flow. This will lead to a stronger economy for everyone.

    A temporary boost is a perfectly acceptable thing for our government to do. They are just choosing not to do it.

    Europe decided to go for cuts and austerity, and it is crushing them. Now we’re following and immitating them. It’s contractionary policy that will shrink the economy, not boost it.

    • "Give everyone free money

      “Give everyone free money (just print it) and we’ll see spending again. Debts will be paid, and new purchases will flow. This will lead to a stronger economy for everyone.”

      The problem with that Chris,Is that 20,000 will be worthless well maybe not worthless but it certainly won’t be worth $20,000. The problem we have now is in part because we HAVE just continued to print money.

      Ron Paul explains that very well.

      • About the money

        My problem with austerity measures is that it means that most people will have less money. The economy is already foundering because people have less money. If we make people poorer than they are now, they will spend even less. How is the economy going to recover that way? I’m just curious how Conservatives see the economy recovering with less and less money in the economy, and if it is going to recover, approximately when?

    • How about succession now?

      And to think just a few short years ago there was talk of Vermont succeeding from the union. Huh, funny how it can’t quite un-latch from the mammary gland of the federal government.

      I’ll never understand the liberal mindset.

      • 20k is nothing, but it is something

        That’s why I said $20k and not the puny couple hundred they usually consider.

        $20k would actually impact lives and the local economy. Stores need shoppers, badly. Restaurants need patrons. All of us who provide services to those businesses need them to do better so they can hire us anytime they need us. Then we’d have more money to spend around town… and so on.

        Think of all the people putting off routine car maintenance, home improvements, or buying something due to tight personal budgets.

        Right now, there are people that need work done, and people to do the work, but no money to make it happen. That’s dumb.

        If the gov’t can print free money for the banks, they can do it for us. They just aren’t. Print free money for a couple of years. That’s what a government can do to juice the economy. It’s worked before.

        The sequester hits the entire nation, btw, left and right. . The entire nation needs to move to Canada. : )

        PS. I can see why trying to understand the “liberal mindset” may cause confusion. It is mythical beast that lives in Rush Limbaugh’s head, with made up opinions and views manufactured by the Republican Party. It’s like trying to understand the unicorn mindset. There isn’t one.

        Our problems are not left and right, they are up and down. If we focus on the rich people stealing from everyone else, not neighbors trying to make ends meet, we may begin to solve things.

      • Not really a liberal view

        I don’t want free money — I want people to have more money so money will flow more freely in the economy. In other words, I would like people who need goods and services to be able to buy them and for people who need to sell goods and services to be able to be get paid for them. Isn’t that the point of economies? Or would it be better to just kill off the middle class and be done with it?

        • declining income

          We need more than a temporary fix. For well over 30 years, real income has declined for working people. Over the past decade & a half, that decline has affected professional, highly educated earners as well. Many of us have noticed this & tried to bring it into a rational public conversation (when we’re not just ranting about stupid, short-sighted greed).

          Take a look back at the economic conditions & tax structure of this country in the 1950s; the only concludion you can come to is that everything Mr. Mike & the plutocrats he loves keep telling us is merely a crock of poor quality fertilizer.

          • Don't Trash the Messenger.

            I don’t believe Ron Paul is a “Plutocrat”. Everything he has predicted in regards to the economy and our money problems have come true. We have to competing factions in our society now, The Warfare State and The Welfare State. Neither gives us economic freedom.

          • Money and Ron Paul

            In case you missed it above, I’m not talking about government so much as the economy. The economy seems to be broken, no matter what the DC pundits say. And while I’m not sure I want the government “fixing” anything, I would definitely like them to stop actively doing things to mess things up. Is that too much to ask?

            Also, Ron Paul’s independently produced “Revolution” campaign video was probably the best political ad I’ve ever seen.

Leave a Reply