- Proverbs 31:8-9
Showing posts with label social justice and poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social justice and poverty. Show all posts
Sunday, July 01, 2012
God believes in entitlements and rights. . .
"Speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of the destitute. Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy."
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Hebrew Wisdom
"Better a little with righteousness than much gain with injustice. . . .
Honest scales and balances are from the Lord; all the weights in the bag are of his making. . . .
Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud."
Honest scales and balances are from the Lord; all the weights in the bag are of his making. . . .
Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud."
Proverbs 16:8, 11, 19
Friday, February 03, 2012
Thank you, Gov. Romney!
I'm grateful to Mr. Romney for being so clear. But even more, I'm so thankful that at last someone brought the issue of poverty and extreme poverty into the national conversation. No one else has been talking about the poor much at all. Over the last two days that has changed. Thank goodness!
Romney said that the focus of his campaign was not the extremely poor or the extremely rich, but the 95% of Americans who are middle class.
Now there are a few glaring problems with his analysis.
First, he explained that the extremely poor had a "safety net" to provide for them. He even went so far as to promise that if he found the safety net in need of repair, he would fix it. I immediately wanted to call him up and invite him down to Texas because our "safety net" is in a world of hurt these days! Name the issue or need and Texas under performs terribly.
Food security and hunger.
Uninsured citizens.
Childhood poverty.
Decent and affordable housing for our workforce and the homeless.
Public education.
Loans/grants for higher education.
Public health.
Workforce training.
Living wages.
Mental health funding.
Dental services for the poor.
Child care and early childhood development.
Public transportation.
The list could go on and on.
The wealth gap grows in our state and in our urban centers, but the net doesn't hold. Besides, we need a platform for folks to stand on and find traction and stability, not a net into which to fall helplessly.
So, come on out to Texas, Governor!
Second, there's the problem of the Governor's math: the 95% in the middle. With 1 in 5 Americans, 1 in 4 children, conservatively estimated, to be living in poverty, there is no 95% to be concerned about! The bottom 30-plus % of our fellow citizens live impoverished lives and things are not improving for them as their numbers swell. But, the Governor says he's not concerned about the poor. I guess not, he doesn't even know how many poor folks there are in the U. S. today. Not good for a President, I'd say.
Still, he brought the subject to the top of our minds. For that I remain grateful.
[Editorial note: This morning reports have the Governor saying that he "misspoke" when he said he "didn't care about the extremely poor." Wonder how that could ever happen?]
Sunday, January 15, 2012
The complications of prayer. . .
Prayer can be complicated.
Denver Broncos quarterback, Tim Tebow sees the NFL as a platform for witness in the form of an "in your face" display of religious action at the end of most successful touchdown drives and games. The popular young player even displays biblical passages etched on his no glare, black eye strips.
Hey, to each his own, I suppose.
Still, Jesus did say on one occasion, "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you" (see Matthew 6:5-8 for statement and context).
Even thanking God for the blessings of life can get complicated. Don't you think?
It seems important to be very thoughtful about how we pray and about those things for which we pray. Prayer should be a time of deep reflection, a private alignment of human life with the values of faith as we come to understand the agenda of God. What do you think?
Denver Broncos quarterback, Tim Tebow sees the NFL as a platform for witness in the form of an "in your face" display of religious action at the end of most successful touchdown drives and games. The popular young player even displays biblical passages etched on his no glare, black eye strips. Hey, to each his own, I suppose.
Still, Jesus did say on one occasion, "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you" (see Matthew 6:5-8 for statement and context).
Even thanking God for the blessings of life can get complicated. Don't you think?
It seems important to be very thoughtful about how we pray and about those things for which we pray. Prayer should be a time of deep reflection, a private alignment of human life with the values of faith as we come to understand the agenda of God. What do you think?Thursday, September 22, 2011
"Poverty can't be ignored any longer," or maybe it can be. . .
Opinion: Poverty met with silence
By Juan Williams - 09/19/11 05:00 AM ET
from The Hill. . .
As Congress’s supercommittee started work behind closed doors last week on long-term spending cuts, there was a public display of Democrats and Republicans singing very predictable and partisan songs over President Obama’s jobs bill.
All of these songs featured clichés about not raising taxes at all — the Republican chorus — or protecting the middle class and small business from tax hikes — the Democrats and Republicans in stereo choral suite.
And then, for a moment, the singing stopped.
The troubling moment of silence came from a Census Bureau report last week that showed a record 46.2 million Americans living in poverty last year. That is the highest number in the 52 years the statistic has been measured.
That means 2.6 million people fell into poverty in just the last year.
That prompted more silence from the big voices on Capitol Hill.
The percentage of the population who are in poverty stands at an alarming 15 percent. For black Americans, the poverty rate zoomed to 27.4 percent. Hispanic Americans’ rate of poverty climbed to 26.6 percent. Asian-American poverty hit 12.1 percent while white American poverty was at 9.9 percent.
Yet in an instant, the congressional choir returned to singing its standard songs.
Maybe the congressional leadership, the budget committees and the supercommittee did not know what to say. Maybe the many millionaires in Congress suffered their bouts of speechlessness from embarrassment.
Earlier this year, 235 House members and 40 senators voted for the Republican budget authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The Ryan budget appears to call for the elimination of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, and for deep cuts in food stamps and Pell grants.
And the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, passed in July by the GOP House majority, and Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) proposals during the debt-ceiling talks ended longstanding exemptions to cuts on programs to keep people out of poverty.
The Bowles-Simpson proposal for balancing the budget kept those programs in place. So did the proposals from the bipartisan Gang of Six.
The Ryan budget also ends Medicare — which prevents the elderly from falling into poverty because of health problems — as a guaranteed program. It also slashes funding for programs that benefit poor children, such as Head Start and the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program.
This is nothing to sing about.
Keep in mind that the poverty line is just $11,139 for an individual and $22,314 for a family of four. Yet 1 of every 7 Americans now falls below it. And still Congress averts its eyes and continues to sing the same old hymns to people with money to donate to political campaigns and money to lobby for their pet programs.
“Programs for the poor are not politically popular because there is no constituency,” said Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies public policy on poverty. “If it is a choice between cutting programs for veterans and cutting spending for poor mothers and infants, guess who wins? It is not that veterans shouldn’t get help. It is just the political reality.”
To read entire report click here.
Proverbs 31:9
By Juan Williams - 09/19/11 05:00 AM ET
from The Hill. . .
As Congress’s supercommittee started work behind closed doors last week on long-term spending cuts, there was a public display of Democrats and Republicans singing very predictable and partisan songs over President Obama’s jobs bill.
All of these songs featured clichés about not raising taxes at all — the Republican chorus — or protecting the middle class and small business from tax hikes — the Democrats and Republicans in stereo choral suite.
And then, for a moment, the singing stopped.
The troubling moment of silence came from a Census Bureau report last week that showed a record 46.2 million Americans living in poverty last year. That is the highest number in the 52 years the statistic has been measured.
That means 2.6 million people fell into poverty in just the last year.
That prompted more silence from the big voices on Capitol Hill.
The percentage of the population who are in poverty stands at an alarming 15 percent. For black Americans, the poverty rate zoomed to 27.4 percent. Hispanic Americans’ rate of poverty climbed to 26.6 percent. Asian-American poverty hit 12.1 percent while white American poverty was at 9.9 percent.
Yet in an instant, the congressional choir returned to singing its standard songs.
Maybe the congressional leadership, the budget committees and the supercommittee did not know what to say. Maybe the many millionaires in Congress suffered their bouts of speechlessness from embarrassment.
Earlier this year, 235 House members and 40 senators voted for the Republican budget authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The Ryan budget appears to call for the elimination of the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, and for deep cuts in food stamps and Pell grants.
And the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, passed in July by the GOP House majority, and Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) proposals during the debt-ceiling talks ended longstanding exemptions to cuts on programs to keep people out of poverty.
The Bowles-Simpson proposal for balancing the budget kept those programs in place. So did the proposals from the bipartisan Gang of Six.
The Ryan budget also ends Medicare — which prevents the elderly from falling into poverty because of health problems — as a guaranteed program. It also slashes funding for programs that benefit poor children, such as Head Start and the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program.
This is nothing to sing about.
Keep in mind that the poverty line is just $11,139 for an individual and $22,314 for a family of four. Yet 1 of every 7 Americans now falls below it. And still Congress averts its eyes and continues to sing the same old hymns to people with money to donate to political campaigns and money to lobby for their pet programs.
“Programs for the poor are not politically popular because there is no constituency,” said Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies public policy on poverty. “If it is a choice between cutting programs for veterans and cutting spending for poor mothers and infants, guess who wins? It is not that veterans shouldn’t get help. It is just the political reality.”
To read entire report click here.
Proverbs 31:9
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
"Not in my back yard". . .and it is a large yard we have!
Recently, he has noted the difficulty experienced by affordable housing developers from all across the country with NIMBYism ("not in my back yard") among neighbors and neighborhood groups who oppose placement of various kinds of affordable housing in proximity to them and/or their property.
Fact: no matter how much preparation, advance notice or participation that developers invite, almost every development anywhere near market rate housing or properties faces neighborhood opposition. That certainly has been true here in Dallas, Texas.
In view of these stories, and many more just like them, from across the U. S., in may be time to modify the Fair Housing Act and other state statutes to define the availability of decent housing as a basic human right. At the end of the day our current experiences as a nation beg the question, "Where are poor people to live?"
Take a look at this limited litany of discrimination and opposition to low-income persons and families. Many more examples could be produced, but these provide real insights into the problem.
Medford, Oregon
Highland Park--Minneapolis, Minnesota area
St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana (racial slurs painted on buildings)
Schereville, Indiana
Durham, North Carolina
Montclair, New Jersey (housing for people with mental health issues)
Clovis, New Mexico
Westchester County, New York
San Francisco, California
Thanks, Bob for the enlightening, but disturbing reports. Keep up your good work.
Friday, June 10, 2011
At CitySquare, we believe in health for all. Over 600,000 residents of Dallas County lack health insurance, which means they are forced to use emergency rooms as their sole source of medical care. Often, these crises could have been prevented with proper preventative health care. A simple cavity becomes an abcess with infection. Uncontrolled diabetes becomes a life-threatening blood sugar crisis. A heart condition becomes fatal without proper medication and maintenance.
Not only does lack of healthcare affect the health of individuals in our community, but it impacts their ability to work and to be the type of parent, spouse or community member they could otherwise become.
Join us for a free screening of the provocative documentary about the correlation between obesity and poor health, “Killer at Large: Why Obesity is America’s Greatest Threat.”
WHEN 7:00 p.m. Thursday, June 23, 2011
WHERE Angelika Film Center & Cafe
(5321 East Mockingbird Lane, Suite 230, Dallas, TX 75206)
Obesity rates in the United States have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that at least 110,000 people die per year due to obesity and 1/3 of all cancer deaths are directly related to it. From our human evolution and our changing environment to the way our government's public policies are actually causing obesity, Killer at Large shows how little is being done and more importantly, what can be done to reverse it.
Killer at Large also explores the human element of the problem with portions of the film that follow a 12-year old girl who has a controversial liposuction procedure to fix her weight gain and a number of others suffering from obesity, including filmmaker Neil Labute.
[Brought to you as a service of the Public Policy Department at CitySquare.]
Monday, March 14, 2011
Pro Life?
Clearly the Texas legislature functions as a strongly "pro-life" elective body. . .up to a point.
The legislators' decisions during this session indicate that they are determined to take rather drastic measures to protect the unborn. However, once a child arrives in a low-income family, all bets are off!
The following story was reported by Christy Hoppe on the actions of our elected representatives appeared in The Dallas Morning News last Thursday, March 10.
The notion that non-profit organizations and churches can pick up the slack in the budget is simply ill-informed. Further, the costs associated with cuts in funding for the needed care typically are passed along by medical professionals to those with private insurance. The fact is, helping poor children helps us all.
But, you read the report and let me know your reactions.
Bill on pre-abortion sonograms comes as Texas legislators plan to slash contraceptive, OB-GYN care for poor
AUSTIN — The Legislature’s push to limit abortions by compelling women to see a sonogram of fetal development comes as the state is cutting back on medical services to low-income pregnant women.
Republican lawmakers are poised to slash $850 million from pregnancy care and family planning in the next two-year budget — a 29 percent cut from current spending.
That would shut down avenues for poor women to find contraception and choke off payments to OB-GYN doctors who might care for those who become pregnant, advocates say.
“There is a responsibility that comes with this desire to tell women what to do with their pregnancy. Clearly, we’re not meeting it,” said Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, who has sponsored a bill to extend women’s health services.
Abortion opponents say that although the budget crunch is real, the sonogram requirement isn’t connected to it.
“We can’t solve our problems by eliminating people,” said Kyleen Wright, president of Texans for Life and a strong supporter of the sonogram requirement that both the House and Senate have approved.
The solution, she said, is for private pregnancy crisis centers, adoption services, religious groups and communities to step up their help for poor women.
“We will pick up the pace. We will meet the need,” Wright said.
Fifty-five percent of Texas births are to women on Medicaid.
Payments to doctors
Most of the proposed budget cuts would come through reducing payments to doctors, who are reimbursed for the care they provide pregnant women on Medicaid. It means physicians will either turn away poor patients or lose money treating them.
Tom Banning, chief executive of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, outlined a grim reality: Medicaid reimburses doctors 70 percent for the cost of services. Most physicians make up the losses in their charges to privately insured patients, but the proposed cuts make that equation harder.
The state has cut reimbursements 2 percent this year and is proposing 10 percent cuts for next year. In addition, Congress is considering a Medicare reimbursement cut of 31 percent.
“It’s got the doctors completely spooked,” Banning said, and many plan to stop seeing patients who require federal help. That will drive more patients to emergency rooms, where their conditions are often worse and
more expensive to treat.
In Athens in East Texas, a group of family doctors began offering prenatal screening for Medicaid patients three years ago. When they started, 120 newborns a year from the area were ending up in the neonatal intensive care unit of Dallas County’s Parkland Memorial Hospital, Banning said.
Last year, it was down to two infants. But if doctors’ payments are cut, “you’ll see a tidal wave hit the emergency room of women who haven’t gotten any prenatal care,” Banning said.
To read entire report click here.
The legislators' decisions during this session indicate that they are determined to take rather drastic measures to protect the unborn. However, once a child arrives in a low-income family, all bets are off!
The following story was reported by Christy Hoppe on the actions of our elected representatives appeared in The Dallas Morning News last Thursday, March 10.
The notion that non-profit organizations and churches can pick up the slack in the budget is simply ill-informed. Further, the costs associated with cuts in funding for the needed care typically are passed along by medical professionals to those with private insurance. The fact is, helping poor children helps us all.
But, you read the report and let me know your reactions.
Bill on pre-abortion sonograms comes as Texas legislators plan to slash contraceptive, OB-GYN care for poor
AUSTIN — The Legislature’s push to limit abortions by compelling women to see a sonogram of fetal development comes as the state is cutting back on medical services to low-income pregnant women.
Republican lawmakers are poised to slash $850 million from pregnancy care and family planning in the next two-year budget — a 29 percent cut from current spending.
That would shut down avenues for poor women to find contraception and choke off payments to OB-GYN doctors who might care for those who become pregnant, advocates say.
“There is a responsibility that comes with this desire to tell women what to do with their pregnancy. Clearly, we’re not meeting it,” said Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, who has sponsored a bill to extend women’s health services.
Abortion opponents say that although the budget crunch is real, the sonogram requirement isn’t connected to it.
“We can’t solve our problems by eliminating people,” said Kyleen Wright, president of Texans for Life and a strong supporter of the sonogram requirement that both the House and Senate have approved.
The solution, she said, is for private pregnancy crisis centers, adoption services, religious groups and communities to step up their help for poor women.
“We will pick up the pace. We will meet the need,” Wright said.
Fifty-five percent of Texas births are to women on Medicaid.
Payments to doctors
Most of the proposed budget cuts would come through reducing payments to doctors, who are reimbursed for the care they provide pregnant women on Medicaid. It means physicians will either turn away poor patients or lose money treating them.
Tom Banning, chief executive of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, outlined a grim reality: Medicaid reimburses doctors 70 percent for the cost of services. Most physicians make up the losses in their charges to privately insured patients, but the proposed cuts make that equation harder.
The state has cut reimbursements 2 percent this year and is proposing 10 percent cuts for next year. In addition, Congress is considering a Medicare reimbursement cut of 31 percent.
“It’s got the doctors completely spooked,” Banning said, and many plan to stop seeing patients who require federal help. That will drive more patients to emergency rooms, where their conditions are often worse and
more expensive to treat.
In Athens in East Texas, a group of family doctors began offering prenatal screening for Medicaid patients three years ago. When they started, 120 newborns a year from the area were ending up in the neonatal intensive care unit of Dallas County’s Parkland Memorial Hospital, Banning said.
Last year, it was down to two infants. But if doctors’ payments are cut, “you’ll see a tidal wave hit the emergency room of women who haven’t gotten any prenatal care,” Banning said.
To read entire report click here.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Budget cuts and low-income backs
State, local lobbyists push to save programs from budget ax
By Kevin Bogardus and Keith Laing - 03/08/11 06:35 AM ET
State and local government officials are flooding Washington to lobby against spending cuts that they say fall disproportionately on domestic programs.
In interviews with The Hill, lobbyists for state and local governments said they understand that the ballooning federal deficit is likely to reduce federal support for roadwork, law enforcement and affordable housing.
But they argue that the sacrifice needed to reduce the deficit should be shared across the board — including by Medicaid, Medicare and defense programs — and not just fall on domestic programs.
“You can’t really solve the deficit by just cutting discretionary, non-military spending. It is such a small part of the budget,” Larry Naake, executive director of the National Association of Counties (NACo), told The Hill. “You end up destroying programs that help a lot of people at the local level.”
The county officials’ group is meeting in Washington this week for its annual legislative conference. Close to 1,600 NACo members will be in town, and many are expected to lobby their home-state delegations about the budget cuts.
The group is concerned about the funding cuts in President Obama’s 2012 budget request and objects to the cuts passed by the House in February for the remainder of fiscal 2011.
Nevertheless, Naake said NACo could support freezing domestic spending at fiscal 2010 levels.
“Once the [continuing resolution] is finished, we will have to start on the proposed budget next year. But it’s not as drastic as anything the House is proposing,” Naake said. “Share the pain across the board, not just with domestic programs.”
One of the biggest priorities of county officials will be protecting funding for Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs). NACo members are being encouraged to wear “Save CDBG” buttons on their suit lapels as they make the rounds on Capitol Hill.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development runs the grant program, which helps local government officials fund affordable housing and anti-poverty programs as well as infrastructure development.
Under the House Republican continuing resolution, the grant program would be reduced from about $4 billion to $1.5 billion. Other programs that face funding reductions under the legislation are the federal transit program, which would go from $10.7 billion to $10.2 billion; the high-speed rail initiative, which would see its current $3.7 billion in funding wiped out; and community health center grants, which would be reduced by $1 billion.
Naake said the budget cuts would only lead to more unemployment during the tough economic times.
To read entire report click here.
By Kevin Bogardus and Keith Laing - 03/08/11 06:35 AM ET
State and local government officials are flooding Washington to lobby against spending cuts that they say fall disproportionately on domestic programs.
In interviews with The Hill, lobbyists for state and local governments said they understand that the ballooning federal deficit is likely to reduce federal support for roadwork, law enforcement and affordable housing.
But they argue that the sacrifice needed to reduce the deficit should be shared across the board — including by Medicaid, Medicare and defense programs — and not just fall on domestic programs.
“You can’t really solve the deficit by just cutting discretionary, non-military spending. It is such a small part of the budget,” Larry Naake, executive director of the National Association of Counties (NACo), told The Hill. “You end up destroying programs that help a lot of people at the local level.”
The county officials’ group is meeting in Washington this week for its annual legislative conference. Close to 1,600 NACo members will be in town, and many are expected to lobby their home-state delegations about the budget cuts.
The group is concerned about the funding cuts in President Obama’s 2012 budget request and objects to the cuts passed by the House in February for the remainder of fiscal 2011.
Nevertheless, Naake said NACo could support freezing domestic spending at fiscal 2010 levels.
“Once the [continuing resolution] is finished, we will have to start on the proposed budget next year. But it’s not as drastic as anything the House is proposing,” Naake said. “Share the pain across the board, not just with domestic programs.”
One of the biggest priorities of county officials will be protecting funding for Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs). NACo members are being encouraged to wear “Save CDBG” buttons on their suit lapels as they make the rounds on Capitol Hill.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development runs the grant program, which helps local government officials fund affordable housing and anti-poverty programs as well as infrastructure development.
Under the House Republican continuing resolution, the grant program would be reduced from about $4 billion to $1.5 billion. Other programs that face funding reductions under the legislation are the federal transit program, which would go from $10.7 billion to $10.2 billion; the high-speed rail initiative, which would see its current $3.7 billion in funding wiped out; and community health center grants, which would be reduced by $1 billion.
Naake said the budget cuts would only lead to more unemployment during the tough economic times.
To read entire report click here.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Concern for justice: central to faith
Ecclesiastes 4:1
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Monday, January 03, 2011
How will poor fare in Austin in 2011?
Fifteen months ago, Texas governor, Rick Perry appointed Tom Suehs Executive Commissioner, Texas Health and Human Services Commission. This may have been the governor's best appointment during his historic term. Suehs manages to get along with both sides of the predominately Republican Texas legislature. He speaks bluntly, pulls few punches and understands what's at stake for the poorest residents of Texas as the state faces an historic $24 billion budget gap over the next two years. Suehs understands that facing such a budget challenge legislators will find programs for the weak, the poor and the marginalized easy targets for cuts. But Suehs' understanding of the problems of both the state and the poor make him a key player in the work that will begin later this month in Austin.
Here's the report that appeared in The Dallas Morning News on Saturday, January 1, 2011:
Texas' social services chief expects agonizing budget process
By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
rtgarrett@dallasnews.com
AUSTIN – As lawmakers gear up to hunt for every penny they can use against an unprecedented budget gap, Texas' safety net for the poor and vulnerable figures to get a lot of scrutiny.
The Legislature's Republican leadership will confront weighty questions, such as how many children the state can afford to provide medical care for and what level of care and supervision can be provided for the elderly and disabled.
At lawmakers' elbows will be the chief of state social services, Tom Suehs. He predicts an agonizing process.
"There are not too many nice and easy decisions," he said recently. "That's why they're going to migrate to cutting some of the optional" services in Medicaid, a health program covering 3.3 million poor children, pregnant women and frail adults.
But Suehs (pronounced "seas") is quick to add that optional services – which can be taken away from adults on the program, though not from youngsters – are not frills. Cuts will be costly and painful.
"I want to do a better job of describing the balloon effects," he said. "If you squeeze the community mental health, you're going to end up possibly with more people in prison, and that'll cost money over there."
Advocates for the needy hold out hope that the former lobbyist will prove to be the man of the hour. At the very least, they predict Suehs – fully vested in the state pension system and with nothing to lose – won't gloss over the consequences of reduced funding.
"Tom's been a straight shooter," said disability rights advocate Bob Kafka of Austin, who has known Suehs for decades.
Read the entire report here.
Here's the report that appeared in The Dallas Morning News on Saturday, January 1, 2011:
Texas' social services chief expects agonizing budget process
By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
rtgarrett@dallasnews.com
AUSTIN – As lawmakers gear up to hunt for every penny they can use against an unprecedented budget gap, Texas' safety net for the poor and vulnerable figures to get a lot of scrutiny.
The Legislature's Republican leadership will confront weighty questions, such as how many children the state can afford to provide medical care for and what level of care and supervision can be provided for the elderly and disabled.
At lawmakers' elbows will be the chief of state social services, Tom Suehs. He predicts an agonizing process.
"There are not too many nice and easy decisions," he said recently. "That's why they're going to migrate to cutting some of the optional" services in Medicaid, a health program covering 3.3 million poor children, pregnant women and frail adults.
But Suehs (pronounced "seas") is quick to add that optional services – which can be taken away from adults on the program, though not from youngsters – are not frills. Cuts will be costly and painful.
"I want to do a better job of describing the balloon effects," he said. "If you squeeze the community mental health, you're going to end up possibly with more people in prison, and that'll cost money over there."
Advocates for the needy hold out hope that the former lobbyist will prove to be the man of the hour. At the very least, they predict Suehs – fully vested in the state pension system and with nothing to lose – won't gloss over the consequences of reduced funding.
"Tom's been a straight shooter," said disability rights advocate Bob Kafka of Austin, who has known Suehs for decades.
Read the entire report here.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Denying health care to the poor in Texas
Now we're told that leadership in the Texas legislature, in the next session beginning in January, may consider ending Medicaid coverage for poor children, women, the disabled and seniors.
Just when you thought Texas couldn't get much colder or non-responsive to poor people, our leaders come through to strike an even harsher blow to the weak, the sick and the impoverished.
Don't it make ya proud?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Charity and justice
When it comes to responding to poverty, most of us opt for individual acts of charity and compassion.
We think of "the poor" as one person after another needing our help today.
We aren't really put off by the realization that, unless many factors change, these same people will need our help again tomorrow. By the time we get to day or incident 5 or 6, our charitable impulses begin to wear thin. We begin to create narratives in our heads that justify our decisions to terminate our charitable instincts, reasoning that if the object of my recent charity would do his or her part, my resources wouldn't be needed.
We all know the drill, don't we?
Charity is about individuals. Individuals in need. Individuals with resources and the freedom to decide as individuals to help or not to help. Charity maintains the existing power differentials and relationships insuring that those with the wherewithal to "help" decide when to help and when to walk past folks suffering in need.
Charity settles for "poster children" results. Anecdotal stories and one-off success reports of individuals who, against great odds, manage to work their way out and up from the cruel clutches of poverty.
Charity concerns itself with the presenting symptoms and results of the presence of poverty. So, it works best in soup kitchens, food pantries, street feeding and giveaway programs of various sorts.
On the other hand, justice seeks equity resulting from a systemic response to poverty and the forces that support its existence.
Justice brings individuals together to work on collective solutions.
Justice wants to change rules and offer up sustainable, public responses to problems so large that they call for scalable solutions beyond the reach of uncoordinated, individual acts of kindness.
Justice wants to hit the reset button on a number of institutions.
Justice calls for new default positions and options.
If charity puts the spotlight on a few individuals who excel and escape, justice provides a tour through a renewed neighborhood or a high-functioning school system or an open health care benefit plan or a new company that employs hundreds of workers and pays a living wage.
Charity asks its questions about the individual.
Justice demands answers concerning scalable solutions to community-wide problems and challenges.
To be sure, charity and compassion are wonderful.
But, when compassionate people come together--rich and poor--to set in motion big, comprehensive changes that will open doors to new opportunity and pave highways out of poverty, justice and equity can be realized.
To adequately address the large problems associated with poverty we must move beyond individual acts of charity to work on collective efforts resulting in justice.
We think of "the poor" as one person after another needing our help today.
We aren't really put off by the realization that, unless many factors change, these same people will need our help again tomorrow. By the time we get to day or incident 5 or 6, our charitable impulses begin to wear thin. We begin to create narratives in our heads that justify our decisions to terminate our charitable instincts, reasoning that if the object of my recent charity would do his or her part, my resources wouldn't be needed.
We all know the drill, don't we?
Charity is about individuals. Individuals in need. Individuals with resources and the freedom to decide as individuals to help or not to help. Charity maintains the existing power differentials and relationships insuring that those with the wherewithal to "help" decide when to help and when to walk past folks suffering in need.
Charity settles for "poster children" results. Anecdotal stories and one-off success reports of individuals who, against great odds, manage to work their way out and up from the cruel clutches of poverty.
Charity concerns itself with the presenting symptoms and results of the presence of poverty. So, it works best in soup kitchens, food pantries, street feeding and giveaway programs of various sorts.
On the other hand, justice seeks equity resulting from a systemic response to poverty and the forces that support its existence.
Justice brings individuals together to work on collective solutions.
Justice wants to change rules and offer up sustainable, public responses to problems so large that they call for scalable solutions beyond the reach of uncoordinated, individual acts of kindness.
Justice wants to hit the reset button on a number of institutions.
Justice calls for new default positions and options.
If charity puts the spotlight on a few individuals who excel and escape, justice provides a tour through a renewed neighborhood or a high-functioning school system or an open health care benefit plan or a new company that employs hundreds of workers and pays a living wage.
Charity asks its questions about the individual.
Justice demands answers concerning scalable solutions to community-wide problems and challenges.
To be sure, charity and compassion are wonderful.
But, when compassionate people come together--rich and poor--to set in motion big, comprehensive changes that will open doors to new opportunity and pave highways out of poverty, justice and equity can be realized.
To adequately address the large problems associated with poverty we must move beyond individual acts of charity to work on collective efforts resulting in justice.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Truth and lies
The truth protects.
The lie ignores.
The truth listens.
The lie criticizes.
The truth praises.”
from Compassion International
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)