Hunger Network in Ohio

I. Poverty as Morality

Scheduled to begin on October 1, 2005, the 2006 budget jumped its last hurdle with approval in the House of Representatives on January 31, 2006 and was immediately signed into law. On February 6, the Administration put forth its 2007 budget proposal which is scheduled to go into effect next October. 

The Budget Is Public Policy 

As a numerical statement of priorities, next year’s budget reveals what’s high and low in importance. Continuing this year’s trend, it features major cuts in numerous domestic programs that serve low- and middle-income families. It continues— actually substantially expanding— tax cuts of very large size that concentrate their benefits on people high on the income scale. 

“The poor we will always have with us” (*). How true! Since these words were first attributed to Jesus, illustrations tragically abound in nearly every place and time. Although we might get “lost in translation,” the fact is undeniable: poverty is persistent and pervasive. “The poor” endure largely without respect from those who would question why, to what extent, how to overcome their sometimes predictable “fate.” 

“Preferential Option for the Poor” 

“Preferential Option for the Poor,” an approach of Roman Catholic liberation theology from the 1960’s in South America, means that every opportunity must be taken in the church—and by society—to relieve suffering. It implies that personal and public policy decisions regarding the use of commonly held resources, such as tax dollars, should be determined first on the basis of their impact upon those with the least.

Although helping the less fortunate appears to be embedded in our universal psyche, most of us need solid evidence before acting philanthropically. We want to see the faces of desperation before shifting our priorities or sacrificing on their behalf. It may occur on the street when we are approached for a handout or seeing neighbors unable to adequately feed or clothe their children. 

That happened to us as an entire nation last summer when Hurricane Katrina roared over the Gulf Coast. The storm and its aftermath exposed the face of desperation, not only in that one time and place, but as a symptom of the heart and soul of ongoing poverty throughout the country. Mass public exposure to severe deprivation led to enormous acts of kindness and generosity by the American people. It resulted in massive, if delayed and mismanaged, humanitarian rescue and yet-to-be-met promises by government officials. 

However, sympathy is frequently fleeting commodity, and attention spans are often diverted to competitive priorities. Within months of Katrina’s destruction, administration and congressional stamina to address these and the larger issues of poverty gave way to entrenched priorities of defense, budget deficit reduction, and tax cuts. 

Facing Poverty Beyond Katrina 

When determining this year’s spending for human services, lingering post- Katrina leaning toward “Preferential Option for the Poor” lost barely in the House of Representatives (216-214) and by a breaker in the Senate (51-50). With funding reduced for services for especially precarious working families without adequate health insurance and child care, we now face the growing numbers of these faces of desperation, not only on the Gulf Coast but throughout the country. 

So, having failed this time to swing congress toward greater caring, how can we as advocates for the poor tip that precarious balance of commitment the other way next time? What might we do to create greater sensitivity in Washington and Columbus to poverty? When contacting a legislator about a bill, lobbying for an issue, or voting on candidates for office, we can each contribute to that preferential promise by first asking ourselves, “how will what I am about to do effect the needy in my community, state, or for that matter, everywhere?” 

Back to top

II. Legislating or Regulating? 
In-TEL-igence in Ohio Politics

“TEL,””TABOR,””CAP,” “CFTR”: We might as well get used to and understand clearly the meaning of these acronyms. Our newspapers and airwaves will be bombarded with their messianic messages for Ohio’s economic future and countered with equally fervent barrages of condemnation. Proponents will argue the necessity of reducing taxes, smaller government and less bureaucracy. Opponents will criticize them as offering overly simple—and arguably, simplistic—solutions to complex problems. They will each be tied to candidates for governor and occasionally woven into warnings about catastrophic consequences upon failure to implement. 

So what do they mean and who is championing them? 

Tax Expenditure Limitation (TEL) is a general concept of restricting state government spending, several variations of which have been proposed as constitutional amendments on the November ballot. TEL contends that government is “TOO BIG” and taxes are “too high.” Proponents claim that if the state had been harnessed by such controls during the past decade, Ohio government would have spent at least $18.7 billion less, an amount roughly equivalent to shutting down state government for a year. They accuse lawmakers of being “wimpy” and lacking courage to make hard and necessary decisions such as whether to cut aid to schools, close prisons or parks, eliminate in-home care for the elderly or reduce other services to meet the state requirement to balance the budget. 

“TABOR” & “CAP” 

TABOR (Tax Payers Bill Of Rights) is the dominant version of TEL which, as a result of petitions gathered by a group known as CFTR (Citizens for Tax Reform), last year, is already on the November ballot. Their chief spokesperson is Secretary of State and frontrunner for governor, Ken Blackwell. It would require a three-fifths vote of the legislature and a majority of statewide voters to increase state spending above the combined rate of inflation and population growth. The plan does not preclude tax hikes, but anything above the spending cap would be refunded to taxpayers once it exceeded 15 percent of the previous year’s income.

CAP (Citizens’ Amendment for Prosperity) is the tax limiting plan of Jim Petro, Blackwell’s Republican challenger. It would cap taxes by limiting the amount of general fund revenues the state could collect to a fixed percentage (5.5 percent) of the total business and personal income earned in the state, a number he said mirrors the current state budget. Leftover revenues would be split: 2.5 percent would go into a rainy day fund while the rest would be given back to taxpayers in the form of a tax credit on the next year’s return. 

Predictably, these two Republican contestants as well as their Democrat rivals for the governorship have taken “potshots” at one another’s concoctions. Petro called Blackwell’s plan flawed and claimed it is similar to an amendment in Colorado that voters put on hold for five years in a statewide election last November. Blackwell called Petro’s plan “TEL light,” and him a “teachable student” who has more recently come around to believing a limitation is a good idea.” Current southeast Ohio Congressman and Democratic candidate for governor, Ted Strickland, criticized both TEL amendment proposals as “defeatist logic...that would lead to fewer cops in our neighborhoods, fewer nurses in our hospitals and fewer teachers in Ohio’s classrooms.” Bryan Flannery, Strickland’s rival in the May primary, has not issued a clear statement on this issue. 

The Case Against “TEL” 

The Coalition for Ohio’s Future, a large bipartisan group of human service, faith-based, and other organizations, is dedicated to defeating such amendments that they claim would forever put in place a rigid and inflexible fiscal policy to restrict the rate of government growth. They see TABOR especially as a faulty fiscal system that would encourage frivolous lawsuits, require expensive “special” elections, and undermine the ability of state and local government to adequately fund essential services. While which way is best may require years to assess, which way Ohio goes will likely parallel who is elected governor. 

Back to top

III. Income Justice:
The Economy and Fair Wages

Ohio is in the embarrassing position of being the only one of two states that have a minimum wage below the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. Our minimum wage for more than 92,000 workers is only $4.25 per hour. These individuals working full-time earn only $8840 annually which, even for a single person with no family, is $1000 below the poverty level. However, recently as advocates of persons with low incomes have taken up their cause, they are encountering resistance. 

Uphill Battle 

Some business owners say that they can’t afford to give employees higher salaries. Although most churches and human services organizations support even a slight raise in salaries as an effective way to reduce the dependence of people they serve, some otherwise charitable organizations are contrary. A minority of nonprofit services for the poor are being prohibited from involvement by boards governed primarily by members who represent corporate interests. Another more idealistic type of advocate for poverty rights, while not openly opposed to increasing salaries, argue that minimal increases fail to address the more essential need to effectively move workers out of poverty. Probably the greatest impediment to increasing the minimum wages is a vast “disinterested” segment of the population that are either ignorant or apathetic. They just don’t care and won’t get involved. 

Recognizing these drawbacks, an initiative was launched on Martin Luther King, Jr. weekend to gain the support of Ohio voters for raising the minimum wage. The LET JUSTICE ROLL Living Wage Campaign is a national, nonpartisan program of faith-based and community-based organizations working to support both federal legislation and state ballot initiatives to increase the minimum wage. The Campaign traces its foundations to the admonition of the prophet Amos: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an overflowing stream.” 

Ohioans for a Fair Minimum Wage is a coalition of nonprofit, community, faith-based, civil rights and labor organizations that believe that no one should have to work for $4.25 an hour. They contend that Ohio’s current minimum wage, set back in 1990, needs to be elevated in response to rising costs and current economic conditions. The Coalition seeks to place a constitutional amendment on the 2006 ballot to raise the minimum wage for workers in Ohio to $6.85 per hour adjusted annually for inflation. 

Situation in Ohio 

Some 500,000 Ohioans are working for the minimum wage, with thousands more making between the minimum wage and $6.85 per hour. The majority (60 percent) of minimum wage workers in Ohio are women, and the vast majority (71 percent) are over the age of 20. 

The Campaign makes an exception for very small businesses and individuals working for family members or on a casual basis around the house, such as baby-sitting or lawn mowing. These would be exempt from the new wage rate. 

Ways for Congregations to Be Involved 

The coalition is circulating a petition and is required to collect 322,899 valid signatures of registered Ohio voters prior to August 10, 2006, to place the issue before the voters in the November 2006 general election. 

There are many ways to lift up worker justice and promote the need to raise the minimum wage, such as the focus of the sermon, “Moment for Mission,” or announcements during the weekend’s regular worship service. In addition to endorsing the minimum wage, members may sign a petition to place the initiative on the ballot and to volunteer to work on the Campaign. 

In the name of economic justice and yet in recognition of genuine resistance to this cause, consensus and common sense will aid this uphill effort to boost the earning capacity of the poorest Ohioans. This is hopefully just one step in a long-term march toward providing a “living wage” for all willing workers.

Back to top

IV. Farewell to Welfare
Moving Families out of Poverty

Give a fish or teaching fishing; hand out a cup of water or show the way toward the reservoir: metaphors for how we, when not ignoring their existence, deal with the needy. Whether “for Jesus’ sake” or in the name of civility, humanity, or guilt, when should we treat symptom or when address the cause? 

TANF Intent 

2006 is the 10th anniversary of “welfare reform.” Begun in the Clinton Administration to confront a culture of entitlement and demand accountability, Temporary Assistance to Families in Need (TANF) hypothetically was a blueprint for enabling often chronically dependent persons to achieve self-sufficiency. Rather than doling out money and benefits without expectations or limitations, it pressured the “able bodied” to get off the “dole.”

It’s standards were firm: Get a job and take care of yourself and your kids. Providing cash assistance for three (extended in some states to five) years, it temporarily offered minimal training, extended transitional health benefits, and underwrote at least partial payment for child care. 

Pointing to dramatic declines in case rolls, founders say it worked well and now can be phased back. Yet, considering increasing numbers of these families shifting their dependency to food pantries and other charitable programs, critics have countered that it hasn’t worked all that well and it should be improved. 

Set Back 

However, on February 1, after 12 tries during a standoff between two distinctive versions of “welfare reform” over several years—one in U.S. House and U.S. Senate—the worst version may have won. This time in the name of deficit reduction and driven by anxiety to reach seemingly unattainable closure otherwise, both sides squeaked out an agreement that appears to be detrimental to the best parts of both bills. Folded into and largely lost in the overall budget resolution, this final decision on TANF reauthorization removed much of the money that an increasing number of just-getting-started working families— mainly single moms—will require for child care. And then it allowed states to blend federal allotments into their own budgets without much allegiance to the overall intent of the legislation or accountability to uniform standards. Having already begun this practice, Ohio has stocked away about $900 million in grants designed for TANF, used previously to help balance the state budget. Now outside original guidelines, this money is now “up for grabs” for filling voids in state spending. 

But, “the beat goes on” for families seeking to become self-sufficient as well as for government systems—and charitable organizations—which will ultimately be depended upon to pick up the pieces if these welfare provisions fail. Human service advocates contend that, to truly take care of themselves, TANF clients will need help gradually weaning themselves from dependency upon both the public and private support. 

Moving Forward 

The underlying ideological debate is about to what extent we as a society ought to be soft-hearted or hard-nosed throughout this process of moving individuals and families a rung at a time up the ladder of being able to care for themselves.

Primary References: Ohio Empowerment Coalition; Working American; Center for Law and Social Policy; Results

Back to top

V. Making $ense of Tax Cuts
Impacting "Haves"/"Have-nots"

Criticisms of prevailing fiscal policies in Washington are scathing. They claim at least one major tax-cut that was enacted in each of the last five years was given primarily to the wealthiest and ultimately penalizing the poorest Americans. All told, they point out that the U.S. Treasury has been deprived of more than $1 trillion and surpluses have been replaced with ominous federal deficits. Coupled with unanticipated expenses of the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, these cuts in available revenues leveraged major spending cuts for human services. On January 31, $39 billion was removed largely from health coverage and child care for working families struggling on the edge of survival. Although billed as essential for reducing the federal deficit, “welfare entitlement” savings, skeptics suggest, could now be wiped out by “corporate welfare.” 

Supporters of this Administration counter this critique with what was known 20 years ago as the “trickledown” theory of economic development. It contends that by giving breaks—as in tax incentives, deregulation, and general deference to entrepreneurs and substantial investors in the American economy, dividends eventually gravitate to the “little guy,” i.e. working class Americans, in the form of jobs. Then, pocketing salaries from risk-taking employers, employees not only survive without government assistance but pay their own bills. Eventually, with extra cash they buy more goods and services, thereby stoking the overall economy with their wages rather than sapping it with their “entitlements.” Everyone wins! 

Tax Cuts and Jobs 

Or do they? A recent study by United for a Fair Economy suggests otherwise. Countering claims by the Administration that “tax cuts create jobs,” this watchdog organization found that “tax cuts have no predicable effect on employment, either in job creation or job destruction.” Suggesting that job creation has fallen millions of jobs short of promises that were used to justify tax cuts, the study worries that the current weakness in job creation during an economic recovery is unprecedented since World War II. 

What has this to do with hunger and poverty? Again, one view of the current disparity within this country is that economic gain for the very wealthy contributes proportionally to the deficiencies of the very poor and to the disadvantage of most low income working class Americans . An analysis of the two tax cuts that recently went into effect, the Urban-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found that, in addition to not providing jobs, these tax cuts are simply being hoarded by the well-to-do. 

Big Cuts for Big Earners 

In other words, those who have much get more and those with little lose most. 

With a record of support for tax cutting in the recent past, congress is likely this year to revisit an initiative to extend cuts which are about to end and extend them well into the future. Many legislators of both parties are wary about adding dramatically to an already rising budget deficit. Yet will they be under tremendous pressure by those with most to gain to turn their backs on those who have most to lose? 

Beneath such contentiousness, where is the common ground? With recent scandals and growing distrust of policy makers these days, some of us believe that we need first to address overall abuse, waste, and corruption in unchecked governance. Others are convinced of the need for political and economic empowerment of and for the underclass, leading to greater numbers of economically disadvantaged citizens using the ballot box and exerting their influence. However, hopefully support from all sides will go to courageous public officials who stand not for their own self-interest but for the common good. 

Primary References: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities; United for a Fair Economy: Urban-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center 

Back to top