It’s one of the hardest games to play. When forced to engage in unheard-of budget cutting, Massachusetts, like every state, must play the dicey stakes of determining which areas to cut and which to preserve. Not all of its decisions have been prudent, however—recently, state funding for families with disabled members was cut to the tune of $78 million. This budgeting decision represents both an unethically blind approach, and a financially shortsighted venture.

Living with a developmentally or physically disabled person completely changes the scope of almost every aspect of one’s daily life. Nowhere is this burden greater than for the parents of a disabled child, a population that has been shown in medical studies to undergo more physical stress than almost any group. To pull the plug on support for this dedicated demographic is unacceptable. A defining characteristic of our species is its care for the sick, and for the government to turn its back on this mission, even in the midst of a tough financial climate, demonstrates a startling confusion of priorities.

The moral dimension aside, the cut may additionally end up costing the state more than the $78 million it saves in cutting these services in the short term. To understand why, it is important to clarify where this money was being funneled in the first place. One of the biggest problems for disabled youth is connecting with their peers and being taught how to live independently; often, they lack opportunities to enjoy regular lives and interactions. The bulk of the existing funding goes toward helping support centers sponsor events like bowling trips and athletic contests to encourage fellowship and social time. Built into many of these events are crucial moments when children are placed in situations through which they must maneuver themselves. Something as simple as asking for directions or reading a map could make the difference between integration into regular life and not.

If these support services that offer disabled persons a window into lives of normalcy are cut back, so too will be the chance for that person to be able to live at home, an ultimate goal for most of these families. Those people who fail to successfully integrate into society always have the option of government housing centers, but this is ultimately far more expensive for the state than the little money it takes for a trip to a state fair or an ice cream social. From a strictly numerical standpoint, the difference between these options and this cutting is egregious; local care is often cheaper on the order of one hundred times.

Those families with developmentally disabled persons will not let this budget pass without a fight. There have already been protests, letters sent to congressmen, and advocacy campaigns. And a victory has already been won—on May 20, the state legislature voted in favor of an increase in the state sales tax, in order to help assuage the damage from these deep cuts. But this raise in revenue still leaves many services closed come the fiscal year 2010. If Massachusetts chooses to think with moral sense and fiscal reason, it will not cut funding to some of its most helpless constituents. A portion of what it would have saved will be buoyed by the federal stimulus package and the new tax, but in the long term such dollars and cents thinking is beside the point. For a moment, policymakers need to put aside their pocketbooks and consider the quality of life of all their citizens.


Marcel E. Moran ’11, a Crimson associate editorial editor is a human evolutionary biology concentrator in Eliot House.