Portland officials defend General Assistance amid push to cut spending
In the face of criticism over General Assistance spending, Portland's elected leaders turned out in Augusta on Monday to explain that Maine's most populous city carries an outsized responsibility to provide for more vulnerable people due to unequal access to services in the otherwise mostly rural state.
'They're there because we haven't determined how to allocate that responsibility to other municipalities,' said Portland Mayor Mark Dion of people receiving assistance. 'You can cut the budget. You have the authority to do that. But, you don't make people disappear.'
General Assistance, which helps municipalities pay for basic necessities for those who can't afford them, has already been a pivotal point in state budget negotiations.
Democratic Gov. Janet Mills' initially proposed limits to the assistance in her change package, which is primarily intended to fix an imminent Medicaid shortfall, however the Democratic majority decided to move that issue and other non-emergency measures to the two-year budget. Republicans are still pushing for the changes in the supplemental, which will be considered again on Tuesday.
But dozens turned out on Monday for a public hearing, largely in opposition to the proposed cuts in the biennial budget.
House Minority Leader Billy Bob (R-Winter Harbor) said the budget problems with General Assistance are a Portland issue in a video taken outside Portland City Hall and posted on the House GOP's Facebook page on Feb. 12.
'General Assistance is a good program when it's used correctly,' Faulkingham said in the clip. 'But here in Portland, they spend 50 times more per person on General Assistance than the rest of the state. As a matter of fact, this city alone gobbles up most of the General Assistance state-wide.'
In 2023, Portland received $7.46 million in General Assistance, which was 88% of the total $8.5 million spending. South Portland received the second-most with $156,340, followed by Lewiston with $123,707.
Cumberland County District Attorney Jacqueline Sartoris told lawmakers on the budget and the Health and Human Services committees during a joint hearing Monday that disproportionate spending is by design, given that most mental health and substance use treatment centers, as well as homeless shelters are located in or near Portland.
'We don't have the population densities to support hospitals, service centers, nonprofits, etc. at a cost effective scale except mostly in Portland,' Sartoris said.
Her office, as well as the Portland police and sheriff's offices have started to work together to use instances of criminal misconduct to leverage people toward help, a significant change to what had been done years ago, she said.
Sartoris cautioned that if housing assistance for these people were to be cut off before they're able to secure more permanent housing, they're going to come right back on her mental health docket, she said, and at that point will require more expensive services.
'Rather than adopt policies that claim to be concerned about equalizing General Assistance between very different communities, I hope the committee will instead focus on the data that shows Portland is serving a unique and essential role for our entire state, and then consider the consequences of adopting this proposal,' Sartoris said.
The proposed cuts to General Assistance would limit housing assistance, except for temporary housing and emergency shelters, to a maximum of three months per household over one year. The budget plan also seeks to limit municipalities from exceeding the maximum levels for all assistance categories for no more than 30 days per household over one year.
Like Sartoris, Dion said it is no secret that Portland spends the most on General Assistance.
'If this body joins the executive and cuts those funds, then I've lost the capacity to meet that need — a state responsibility I'll fail to meet,' Dion said.
State law requires municipalities to administer General Assistance, but it's largely funded by the state.
The state also regularly reviews these allocations and issued Portland a notice in September that the city violated state law because one of its shelter reimbursement requests exceeded the maximum amount allowed, which is based on the rate the Department of Health and Human Services sets for a studio or efficiency apartment. The maximum that could be reimbursed per bed per night is $44, according to the notice.
In reality, Dion said, much more is needed. He pointed to a study released in January by Maine Housing that assessed the daily costs of 27 shelters that represent two-thirds of those in Maine's Emergency Shelter and Housing Assistance Program and found the average annual cost to be just over $95 per bed per night.
The Department of Health and Human Services is also considering other funding cuts to General Assistance reimbursements through a rule change, which Dion argued would exacerbate what he sees as already inadequate reimbursements.
'Just know that the kennel boarding my dog costs about $75 dollars a day and I supply his food,' Dion said. 'It appears that my dog enjoys the possibility of a better deal than a homeless person in Maine under the proposed reimbursement rate.'
Dion said unhoused people move at varying speeds to positions where they can be employed, depending on a multitude of factors such as getting substance use and mental health treatment, but that expecting city and nonprofit services to make that a reality for everyone in 60 to 90 days is not feasible.
Rep. Anne Graham (D-North Yarmouth) asked Dion to return with a proposed compromise for a limit to General Assistance that he would view as more reasonable. Dion said he'd consult the mayor's coalition.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
23 minutes ago
- Politico
Van Hollen blocks FBI funding bill from floor debate over Trump headquarters dispute
The simmering dispute over the FBI's future headquarters derailed Senate efforts Thursday night to launch floor debate on the legislation that funds the agency, as well as the departments of Commerce and Justice, NASA and science programs. Sen. Chris Van Hollen objected Thursday night to including the bill in a larger package of funding measures. The Maryland Democrat demanded that the Senate agree to adopt language that would require the FBI to meet a specific security threshold for its headquarters, as the Trump administration keeps the agency in downtown Washington instead of relocating it to the suburban Maryland campus previously selected after a yearslong competition. But Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), who chairs the funding panel that handles the bill, shot down that request on the Senate floor Thursday night, after the dispute over the FBI headquarters already snagged committee action on the bill. Tearing up as he spoke on the floor, Moran said he knows 'no path forward' that would allow Van Hollen's amendment. 'Our appropriations process is fragile,' he said. If Van Hollen, who serves as the ranking member on the Commerce-Justice-Science Subcommittee, hadn't objected, his amendment would have been teed up for a vote. But Van Hollen didn't want to take the risk that the language would not have been adopted. 'That is a simple request that I would have thought all of us could stand behind,' Van Hollen said, 'making sure that the new headquarters of the men and women of the FBI meets the security requirements that we and they have set out.' Senate appropriators already killed another amendment Van Hollen proposed in committee, which would have barred the Trump administration from dipping into a $1.4 billion construction account for anything besides relocating the FBI to the previously selected site. After the proposal was initially adopted, the committee later voted to strike the language because so many Republicans were threatening to tank the underlying bill if it rebuked Trump on the headquarters decision. 'We did it because the president of the United States was going to throw a fit if that provision stayed on, that's why people reversed the position,' Van Hollen said on the Senate floor Thursday night. 'And we shouldn't make our decisions out of fear about what somebody in the White House is going to do, because that distorts the entire process here in the United States Senate.' Moran's Thursday evening request was to tie together four bills to fund the government for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Those bills would collectively fund the departments of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture, as well as military construction projects, the operations of Congress and the FDA. The Kansas Republican touted that those four measures had made it through the full Senate Appropriations Committee with bipartisan support and 'in some instances, unanimously.'


Miami Herald
35 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
White House insider slips up, reveals secret Social Security plan
Social Security is one of the most popular entitlement programs in America, as it's kept millions of seniors out of poverty. Since every worker has paid into the system, future retirees expect to get the benefits they have been paying for during their entire working life – although many also fear that they won't get those benefits due to ongoing concerns about the program's finances. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Since Social Security has been so popular, President Trump broke from traditional Republican orthodoxy, which had long seen major politicians on the right calling for reforms and even making efforts to privatize Social Security. President Trump has promised over and over on the campaign trail to protect Social Security and has sworn he will not cut benefits. Unfortunately, a White House insider slipped up recently and let the cat out of the bag that there may be a secret plan in the works to privatize Social Security. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made the troubling comments on Wednesday, July 30, 2025, at a forum hosted by Breitbart News. While the Treasury Secretary has since tried to walk back his statements, the fact remains that Bessett may have simply revealed something that lawmakers were hoping would not come to light. Bessett's concerning comments about Social Security came as part of a discussion on the Trump Accounts, which are included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that was signed into law on July 4, 2025. The Trump accounts will offer a $1,000 deposit from the Treasury for eligible children, and additional contributions can be made over time to the tune of a $5,000 post-tax contribution per year. The accounts are expected to have similar rules to an IRA, and the children they are created for will be able to begin making withdrawals as adults. Related: Warren Buffett's blunt Social Security warning is becoming reality When Bessett was discussing the accounts, however, he made a statement that suggested the accounts are not as innocent as they seem. "In a way, it is a back door for privatizing Social Security," Bessent said while speaking about the new savings account program. This statement was in stark contrast to the repeated promises made by President Trump on the campaign trail to leave Social Security alone for future generations. Democratic lawmakers pounced on the comments that Bessett made, immediately sounding the alarm and warning the public that the Treasury Secretary may have let a secret slip that the White House did not want to get out. "Donald Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent just said the quiet part out loud: The administration is scheming to privatize Social Security," said Tim Hogan, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee. Related: Social Security's 2026 COLA will be good news for older Americans Hogan went on to comment, "It wasn't enough to kick millions of people off their health care and take food away from hungry kids. Trump is now coming after American seniors with a 'backdoor' scam to take away the benefits they earned." Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer also criticized the comments, stating in a Senate Speech: "A stunning admission. Bessent actually slipped, told the truth: Donald Trump and the government want to privatize Social Security." Bessett responded to the criticism and the concern on a post on X, stating, "This is not an either-or question: our Administration is committed to protecting Social Security and to making sure seniors have more money." More on retirement: Dave Ramsey offers urgent thoughts about MedicareJean Chatzky shares major statement on Social SecurityTony Robbins has blunt words on IRAs,401(k)s Of course, after-the-fact denials about a candid statement made hours ago may not provide quite the level of comfort that Americans who are counting on their future Social Security benefits are hoping for. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.

an hour ago
MAGA divided as some publicly defy Trump on key issues
Former GOP representative and ABC News political contributor John Katko breaks down how key Republicans are defying Trump on issues like Israel and the Jeffery Epstein case.