This content is made possible by the generous sponsorship support of The Minneapolis Foundation.
Advocates for needy fear today's political climate
When the homeless and hungry came knocking on the front door of her downtown Anoka church, Naomi Peterson realized she needed to get involved.
“We get to our church door pretty much every day people needing money for food, for the bus,’’ and sometimes a place to sleep, Peterson, a retired public school teacher, told me.
So Peterson joined others from a new social justice group at First Congregational Church of Anoka, UCC, to help co-host a recent town hall meeting with legislator Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka, the House Health and Human Services finance committee chairman. About 80 attended.
Outside the Capitol walls, advocates for those whose lives would be most affected by funding cuts in housing, disabilities, transportation, childcare, health care, career training and other social service programs are orchestrating efforts to connect those who control the state’s purse strings with ordinary voters. This weekend, as well, many legislators are hosting community town halls, and advocates invite voters to speak their minds.
Advocates say the stakes are high this year, and time is short.
Early this morning, the Republican-controlled Minnesota House approved massive cuts — about $1.7 billion over two years — in health and social service programs. Lawmakers approved the cuts with a 70-62 vote, mostly along party lines, after a lengthy debate.
A similar measure has already passed the GOP Senate. The state faces a projected $5 billion budget deficit over two years, and today’s House action now sets up important budget talks with Republican leaders and DFL Gov. Mark Dayton. Republicans want to solve the budget problem without tax increases, and Dayton wants to raise taxes on high-wage earns as part of his budget solution.
The Dayton administration has criticized many parts of the GOP budget plan, and advocates for the poor say their fears are tempered with hope that governor will save programs for the poor with his veto power. Consequently, some legislators and others see the health and human services bills as still open for discussion.
'More panic'
The political climate is different this year, says Brian Rusche, executive director of the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition, a sponsor of the Anoka forum. “I think I sense among local officials, city and county, more panic, more willingness to kind of tell the story of what this means and to communicate to the public what is at stake.’’
And one of the roles of the faith community — his group is governed by Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and Protestant organizations and boasts a listserv of 13,000 — Rusche says, is to call the public’s attention to the wide chasm between needs and funding.
“We have a higher calling. We have to see ourselves as inside the problem, instead of watching these gladiators go at it,’’ he says. “If you want your potholes filled and to send your kids to a good school and you don’t want your neighbor to starve, you’ve got to pay something fair. We’ve all got to do it.’’
Downtown Congregations to End Homelessness urges those on their email list to participate in the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition’s frequent webinar Legislative updates on health and human services proposals.
The Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless suggests voters write letters to the editor of their local newspapers with key talking points including the message that a $5 billion deficit is “challenging” but: “the budget reflects our values and there must be a moral floor we will not cross.’’
A Minnesota Without Poverty email exhorts voters to “take action now” to encourage legislators to implement recommendations for ending poverty in Minnesota by 2020.
Other groups, too, plead that people call or write their legislators urging them to preserve funding of programs aiding the poor. “This is a critical moment…” declares an Internet message from Growth & Justice, a progressive think tank, suggesting folks contact their legislators to voice serious concerns with a “cuts-only” approach to the budget.
“It’s like six different ways they’re asking the same families who did not create this deficit to shoulder the payment of this deficit,’’ Rusche says. For instance, proposed cuts in day care assistance, job training and public transportation would make life harder for the poor, the disabled and those seeking jobs, as would decreased renters’ credits and increased property taxes, he says.
I was reminded of the dramatic question he’d posed in an interview with me months ago regarding the now $5 billion budget deficit and the ripple effects of budget cuts: “How do you do this without sending families over the edge, onto the streets, so that it puts schools, neighborhoods and towns into a death spiral?”
Many people are concerned about the enormous health and human services budget cuts, says Liz Kuoppala, executive director of the Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless, an advocacy group with 150 member organizations.
“I think we still have a long way to go in Minnesota on this dialog on raising revenues,’’ she says, adding that a “strong safety net” of support services is essential to a good economic recovery plan.
Put the money in the hands of the people who will spend it, the people who need it, Kuoppala says.
And, of course, it’s not over til the Legislature turns its lights out for the session. On May 11 the JRLC, joined by other groups, will try a different tack, a vigil. They’ll light candles and park themselves in the Capitol Rotunda.
“We’re going to pray and we’re going to sing and read a litany of readings,” Rusch says.
Upcoming event
Homelessness in our Community: Current Trends, State Budget Decisions & the Role of the Edina/Bloomington Faith Community, 8:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. on April 9, Colonial Church of Edina.
Co-sponsors: Downtown Congregations to End Homelessness, Joint Religious Legislative Coalition, Catholic Charities Office for Social Justice, The Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless, Corporation for Supportive Housing and the Minnesota Housing Partnership.
More like this
- Poverty rate rises in Minnesota while giving to help poor has declined
- Hard sell and tough times: Advocates for homeless try to make their case
- Religious groups ready to rally on budget cuts, but they don't expect it to make immediate difference
- What's the real poverty rate in Minnesota? Higher than you think
- ‘A Minnesota Without Poverty’: Proposals from anti-poverty conference
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
40 comments
-
24 comments
-
22 comments
-
19 comments
-
17 comments
Comments (9)
Do not worry say the repubs the confidence fairy will come and save us all. Ryan yesterday was quoting the classic rebuked supply side theory.
The other side of the coin.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/112933714.html
"State government spending on public welfare was greater than 30 percent of general expenditures in 11 states, led by Minnesota (37.5 percent)," the government numbers bureau said in a news release Wednesday.
Gregory, of course state spending on welfare is up. We're coping with the worst economic crisis in 90 years. That's precisely when upward pressure on the social safety net occurs, and when it is appropriate for government to provide for its people.
Aren't you seeing those yellow "Auction" signs in your neighborhood? How many more of them would you like to see? 5? 10? 20? Your property value will suffer. Your neighbor's kids are going to bed hungry--one in eight kids in Minnesota. How about the seniors who sit next to you at worship? You think they deserve some "tough love" so a wealthy person does not have to pay more in taxes?
Need is up 40-60% and donations are down 5%. The private sector appears unwilling to fill the gap. The need is real--hard, desperate need for food, housing and services. The private sector can, and does, just look away; government and non-profits have a moral obligation to respond.
Danie, do the math! Ninety years ago was 1921. The US was coming out of a post WWI economic slump but the Twin Cities and Minnesota were booming because of very high post WWI demand for grain. My http://SearsHouse.com was built in 1921. Except for the farmhouses my entire Longfellow Minneapolis neighborhood, a WWI "suburb" was built in 1920 and 1921. (Perhaps you meant the "great Depression which started eighty years after the 2008 "crash").
That said I know a lot of people affected by the "crash" of 2008. That said, I like to play the "devils advocate".
A few weeks back I read about a church based food-shelf that had it's government foodstuffs cut off because it wants to screen and assess potential recipients. Are people hitting up the food-shelves because they "need" cable TV? (My cable TV runs $60 per month. I can afford it but I looked at alternatives but Minnpost.com reported the options to get the Twins home games which are all within a couple of dollars of Comcast.)
We had people where I worked who "milked" the food shelf system. I worked in the computer field. It would have been easy to make a metro-wide system to track the "frequent flyers" who abuse the "honor system" and use the emergency aid system as an "income supplement". (the family doing this actually went to Disney World on vacation!). Shouldn't the emergency relief network have an obligation to insure that the "benefits" are given to the truly needy?
With the highest in the US (according to the census) "welfare" spending: Is Minnesota a "welfare magnet"? The anecdotal evidence seems to indicate this. Demographically, Minnesota should be one of the "least poor" state in the US but it has, according to the Census agency, the highest "welfare" spending percentage of any state. Why?
Timely. Jim Abeler was on Almanac last night talking about the HHS budget. He made an analogy to family budgeting. He said when a family loses income and can't pay the mortgage, it has to decide whether to default on the loan or have less delivery pizza.
Huh?
http://www.mnvideovault.org/mpml_player_embed.php?vid_id=22080&select_in...
Click "HHS Lawmakers" and prepare to be flummoxed. Or outraged.
Lora: The constitution of the US says talks of promoting "the general welfare", not "general welfare". Big difference!
I did mean the Great Depression. It followed the last period of time when the income disparity between rich and poor was as deep and wide as it is today.
I've volunteered at food shelves and worked for hunger relief organizations in Minnesota and Nevada. I talked to many food shelf visitors who had exhausted every other possible resource before coming there, which they saw as a last resort.
I wish I had a nickel for every person who had fallen from a financially secure perch like yours who never, ever, ever thought they would need help. (Consider that we have lost half the construction jobs in MN.)
And I never saw such generosity as among people who had next to nothing. One woman would take the canned vegetables she received and use them to prepare soup which she shared with four other families in her mobile home park. It humbled me.
If you will not support programs for the needy out of charity, do it out of greed. Sending more people over the edge into desperate poverty destabilizes neighborhoods, schools and states. And besides, a day may come when you, too, will need this help.
David, the mn republicans have been using this Pizza analogy a lot lately. May be it is part of their talking points.
'With the highest in the US (according to the census) "welfare" spending: Is Minnesota a "welfare magnet"? The anecdotal evidence seems to indicate this. Demographically, Minnesota should be one of the "least poor" state in the US but it has, according to the Census agency, the highest "welfare" spending percentage of any state. Why?'
Minnesota is, in fact, one of the least poor states in the Union. There is no "should be" about it. According to Census data from 2008 (the most recent year these numbers are available), Minnesota ranked 12th from the top in median household income.
Mineral resources probably have something to do with that ranking; consider that Alaska, a low-population state with lots of petroleum, ranks FIFTH from the top in median household income.
The money that Minnesota spends on anti-poverty programs works to keep poverty low. At least it did as recently as 2008, when Minnesota's rank in persons below the poverty level was 42nd among all US states. Minnesota actually did a good job of fighting poverty in 2008 - we even punched slightly above our income class.
The amount of money we spend to fight poverty, which has made some of us worry so much lately, has a positive effect that I believe we would sorely miss if we spent less. The question we should ask is not HOW MUCH we spend, but HOW EFFICIENTLY we spend it. What do we get in return? What would we lose if we spent less? For example, what would happen to our consumer spending level? What would happen to our crime rate?
I agree with those who say that it is wrong for freeloaders to exploit our welfare system. However, I see no evidence of widespread abuse in the system, and anecdotes that "somebody heard somewhere" don't cut it for me.
I also agree with the old adage that if we give somebody a fish, somebody eats for a day, but if we teach somebody to fish, somebody eats for a lifetime. But I wonder: Which costs more money, handouts or education? I realize that every kind of investment in public education, including our public school system, has come under attack recently. But what are the costs of failing to educate and train the people who need it the most? Maybe we need to spend more money now - in what are obviously economic hard times - in order to pay less later. Maybe if we are stingy now, we will find ourselves having to pay more later. This seems particularly likely when we are talking about education and job training.
And here's another question along the same lines: If we tried to screen out freeloaders by running background checks on all welfare recipients, would we end up spending less money or more? And if we kept spending at the same level, would we lift more or fewer people out of poverty?
There is of course a deeper moral argument at the center of all spending on public welfare. But it is not true that equity and efficiency are always at odds with each other. Sometimes, it's more efficient to be more fair. As Paul Wellstone said: "We all do better when we all do better."