Category Archives: Budget

Mind the Gap! Petition delivery to the White House

Mind the Gap! Petition delivery to the White House

By Jean Sammon

July 28, 2011

NETWORK staff delivered the petition for a White House summit on the wealth gap to the White House on Monday July 25. We met with Jon Carson, Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, who actually was very engaging! We presented him with the petition, the list of 6170 names of people who signed the electronic version, including their comments, and the paper petitions signed by another 200 people. We had signatures from each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, Palau, and the Marshall Islands.

Jon Carson's office in West Wing

In our conversation with Mr. Carson, we were please to see the he understands the importance of this issue. We talked about how the wealth gap relates to the current debate on the debt crisis, and he was very interested in what we were hearing from people around the country. He stressed how important it is for constituents to make personal contact with their elected representatives. Even if elected officials won’t always admit it in public, constituents do have an influence on their behavior.

One of the nice surprises was that Lauren Dunn joined us in the meeting. Lauren was a NETWORK associate in 2006, and is now working with the White House Domestic Policy Council. She told us that the people in her department are working to increase opportunity for people at the low end of the wealth gap.

We will follow up with Jon Carson and Lauren and others at th NETWORK staff at White House e White House on the idea of a summit on the wealth gap. We still intend to meet our goal of 10,000 signatures on the petition, and we will deliver all of them in future meetings, as we continue to educate elected officials as well as the public on the causes and consequences of the wealth gap in our country, and advocate for responses.

If you haven’t signed the petition, please do so athttp://www.networklobby.org/petition-white-house-summit. If you have already signed, please forward the link to others and ask them to sign.

Blog: Shocking Poverty Statistics

Mary Georgevich

Sep 16, 2010

Today, the United States Census Bureau announced the poverty statistics for 2009. The numbers are pretty shocking for me: 43.56 million people were living in poverty in 2009. It’s the largest number that they’ve measured since this data has been collected (they started measuring this in 1959), and it’s a 1.1% increase over 2008’s numbers. Living in poverty is defined as a family of four who makes less than $21,729 a year. At NETWORK, we knew this bad news was coming. For a couple of weeks now, we’ve been bracing ourselves for the worst. But it’s important to remember that these numbers are telling us about history. There are thousands of non-profits out there that have been witnessing the personal tragedies of these numbers every day since the start of this recession.

The recession hit these programs with a double whammy: dried up funding (from governments and private donors) and increased need. I witnessed this personally at the end of 2009 and most of 2010. I was working for a gang intervention program in Los Angeles called Homeboy Industries. It’s an amazing organization, run by Greg Boyle, S.J., that offers many services completely free of charge including tattoo removal (the most popular service), counseling, twelve step meetings and even a charter high school. And most importantly – especially during this recession – they employ hundreds of men and women with barriers to employment and help train them to do various types of jobs. This is an especially important part of Homeboy’s service because not only does it offer a sense of purpose to many people looking for a reason to hope, but it is a place to go every day, a shelter from the streets. Like their t-shirts say, “Nothing stops a bullet like a job.”

Well, during this recession, gang members are a group of people that have been disproportionally affected by the unemployment rates. Whereas University of California graduates are underemployed, California Department of Corrections graduates tend to be unemployed. This year, Homeboy Industries found itself drowning in the demand for employment. Funding just couldn’t keep up with the need, and as a result, Homeboy laid off most of its employees in May (about 300 people, including Fr. Greg). They raised some money right away and hired back about 100 employees, but the program is operating as a shadow of its former self. And that is a tragedy for the city of Los Angeles.

This is why the social safety net is so needed right now. Homeboy Industries keeps people out of jail. It is a community, a source of hope for thousands of people in Los Angeles. While programs like Food Stamps, the TANF emergency fund and Section 8 housing (to name a few) don’t solve the problem, they can provide support for programs like Homeboy which are on the front lines battling against the disillusionment that accompanies poverty and marginalization.

When I hear that 29.9% of single mothers are living in poverty, I picture the line cook in the Homegirl Café who won’t be able to move her daughter out of an unhealthy home environment until Los Angeles is able to work through their Section 8 waiting list and start accepting new applications again. And when I see that there were 1.4 million more children living in poverty in 2009, I think of the teenager who was working his way out of the cycle of poverty when he was shot and killed Thursday morning. I think that’s important-that when we look at these numbers and we read the news reports detailing how bad this makes the Democrats or Republicans look, we try to remember who these numbers are actually affecting.

Blog: As the 112th Congress Opens

Marge Clark, BVM

Jan 12, 2011

Reflection on the first week of the 112th Congress is particularly difficult. The events of the week have tossed emotions across uneven seas. House and Senate members returned to Washington on January 5 for the swearing in, getting to know each other and finding offices. I was privileged to take part in a beautiful, hope-filled prayer vigil to initiate the work of the 112th Congress. Priests, Rabbis, Protestant ministers and Congressional leaders across party lines led us in Scripture, hymns, prayers and a reflection on the role of Congress in our time. What a positively inspirational commencement of this new Congress.

Hopes were lifted as advocates met and chatted about issue agendas and how they could work together on shared goals.Meetings were set up, visits to new members discussed. Leaders of the majority and the minority spoke to their desire to cooperate with those “across the aisle.” There were references to the progress in bipartisanship which had brought such great progress in the not-so-lame-duck session.

However, with each new Congress come apprehensions as well as hopes. The 112th is no different. Apprehensions heightened with House leadership vowing to control the deficit through huge cuts to non-military discretionary spending and repeal of the new Healthcare Act for which we (NETWORK staff and members) worked so hard.

And then, on Saturday, political violence moved from verbal to physical with the slaying and injuring of 20 people, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. People had come together to interact with their Congressperson – to take an active role in governing – but the good of that event was suddenly shattered. Whether there is a direct connection between the vitriolic language in the political arena in recent years and the shooting in Arizona is irrelevant. The angry and violent references belittle us as a nation, reducing the trust and value placed in government – in many cases replaced by expanded valuing of financial security for those with the greatest power, and those who wish to be in that position.

Revised poverty data indicate that greater than 20% of our children live in homes below the poverty threshold, with 25% of children in food-deprived homes. These statistics don’t seem able to improve in a nation with almost 10% of our workers unemployed, and with far more underemployed or having given up the job search. Yet, these children and their families are a part of us. We bear responsibility for their ability to live in dignity.

So, hopes and apprehensions – the yin and the yang – keep us alert, and hopefully in balance.

Blog: The Debt Limit Debate

Casey Schoeneberger

Jan 19, 2011

As the 112th Congress gets into full swing, Republicans are positioning themselves to fight for unprecedented cuts in non-security discretionary spending in exchange for their votes to raise the debt limit. Despite Republican threats to bring government to a halt if an agreement is not reached, raising the debt limit should not garner concessions from President Obama or Members of Congress. It is not a move that anyone wants to make, but it needs to be done for the country to function and should not be used as a bargaining chip to obtain across-the-board cuts on non-security discretionary spending. The debt limit is expected to be reached as soon as March, and an agreement must be reached before then. Members of Congress are trying to turn the urgency of the situation into an excuse to threaten cuts to vital programs. While it is difficult to conceptualize what cutting billions of dollars from the federal budget would do, picture 21% cuts on Head Start, Family Violence and Battered Women’s Shelters or the Social Services Block Grant (which happens to serve as the biggest source of funding for the Child Protective Services System).

Raising the debt limit is a painful and necessary reminder that we need both spending cuts and revenue increases to care for our elderly, educate our children, and create infrastructure to remain competitive in the global economy. This is neither a game nor something to use for political fodder. As Americans who are affected by and care about these vital social programs (including something as basic as The Department of Education), we must not allow Congress to compromise the lives of children and the most vulnerable by these political games of “Uncle.”

Congress must be forced to bear witness to the reality that those cuts impose on people’s everyday lives. Making 21% cuts across the board is the easy solution for them. They neither have to dig deeper to see both the true spending and lack of revenue problem nor irritate any particular part of their constituency.

We must not allow these decisions to be easy ones for Congress. There are millions of Americans and hundreds of advocacy organizations in D.C and across the country ready to stand up to Congress and their careless decisions. Congress may believe that widespread cuts would not irritate any particular part of their constituency, but I happen to be particularly annoyed. I am annoyed at the lack of foresight some members of Congress show when speculating that double digit cuts could somehow be good for Americans who are still trying to pull themselves out of the hole the Great Recession dug.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner stated that even if we do manage to return to 2008 spending levels (like the Republicans are proposing), the debt limit increase would only stand to be delayed for two weeks. Essentially, this compromise on spending cuts and the debt limit could threaten the safety net of millions of Americans and destroy essential protections for low-income Americans, so we can delay the inevitable for a few weeks of political victory. I know difficult decisions must be made, and we must start designing an America budget that pays attention to spending reductions – and revenue increases – but it would be unconscionable to put the weight of these spending cuts on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans.

We must ask ourselves where our priorities lie, and who needs to be protected during this prolonged, economic recovery. Our budget is a living, breathing moral document and one that dictates and says to all our citizens, including our children, where our priorities lie. Let’s show them and their parents that our priority is not just to rein in the deficit, but to give them a safe world to grow up in. And not a world where we are solely concerned with homeland security, but security of a different sort. The security to know that if you are willing and able, you will have the opportunity to get an education and go to college and Pell grants will be funded to help you get there. You, as a child, will not have to be denied food because of cuts to food stamp programs and you will have a place to sleep because it remained a priority to fund low-income housing. That when you grow up, you can feel confident knowing that the Medicare and Social Security safety nets will be there to protect your parents. Let’s be clear to Speaker Boehner, all of Congress, and President Obama, exactly where our priorities lie.

Blog: Elephant Economics

Elephant Economics

By Mary Georgevich

February 14, 2011

Every time I see an article about the debt limit increase or the budget fights, I have to take a few deep breaths to calm down. To put it bluntly, this national conversation is stressing me out. So I decided to learn more background information about economics. (Because information is power, right?)

I attended a panel at the Urban Institute called What Policymakers, the Public, the Press, and Parents Need to Know About Economics… in 90 minutes or Less. The most important thing that I learned at this panel was that competing economic theories can sometimes both be true.

To explain economic theory to us, one panelist used the example of blind men checking out an elephant. One man feels the tusks, so he believes an elephant is hard, with sharp ends. Another feels the tail and thinks it is soft. Another feels the foot, and another the side. Each man is correct about how an elephant feels, but none gets the whole picture. Economists tend to see the elephant through the part they’ve studied, and though they aren’t necessarily wrong, they aren’t completely right either.

So how does this apply to the situation right now? Well, I think it underscores the fact that simply cutting taxes will not make the economic situation better. We need a wide variety of solutions, so we can try to cover as much of the elephant as possible.

The other important fact that I learned was that something that is good for an individual might not be good for the economy. For instance, if one person saves, that’s good for them. If everyone saves, that’s bad for our economy, which relies on consumer spending. Conversely, something the government does (like creating regulations) may be bad for one person, but good for the economy as a whole.

The things I learned at this panel didn’t necessarily make me feel calmer about the state of affairs in Congress right now, but it did help me feel better about my response to it. The national conversation is less about the economy than it is about the role of government in our country. But instead of engaging the question of what the government should do, Congress is just engaging the question of how much to defund it.

That won’t solve any problems. It will just make the situation even worse for the people who tend to get trampled on by the elephant.

Blog: Stop the Safety Net Cuts!

Stop the Safety Net Cuts!

Casey Schoeneberger

February 25, 2011

To protect those who are poor and vulnerable from atrocious budget cuts contained in H.R 1, which passed in the House on February 19, we must be aware of how these cuts translate into a loss of safety net programs and services. These proposed cuts undermine individuals’ very safety and security, and we must let Congress know that draconian cuts to vital social service programs will not be tolerated. See the information below, made available by the Coalition on Human Needs, and contact your senators today!

218,000 young children will not be able to receive Head Start services.
11 million patients will lose healthcare they would have received at Community Health Centers over the next year. Almost immediately 127 health center sites would have to close and 7,434 jobs would be lost.
20 million low‐income people, including 5 million children, 2.3 million seniors, and 1.7 million people with disabilities, will have access to anti‐poverty services disrupted because federal funding for community action agencies will be virtually halted in the last seven months of the year.
9.4 million low‐income college students who receive Pell Grants will lose some or all of this college aid as a result of the House reduction in the maximum Pell Grant amount from $5,550 to $4,705 per year.
More than 8 million adults and youth would lose access to job training and other employment services. Job training under the Workforce Investment Act would essentially be shut down until July 2012.
Cuts in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program will mean 81,000 people, mostly low‐income elders, will no longer receive the food baskets. The program now serves 467,000 low‐income people in 32 states, the District of Columbia, and two Native American reservations. Elderly poor in Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts and Rhode Island will not get the food packages because there will be no funding to expand the Commodity Supplemental Food Program in their states.
1.2 million poor households in public housing (two‐thirds of whom are elderly or have a disability) will see maintenance and repairs on their apartments deteriorate because the Public Housing Capital Fund is cut by more than $1 billion (over 40 percent).
Fewer low‐income households needing help to pay for heat during this harsh winter will get assistance because the House slashed nearly $400 million out of a $590 million fund allowing for more aid to be released to states. $125 million from this fund has already been spent, leaving only $65 million for the rest of the year. 8.3 million households received an average of $456 in heating or cooling assistance last year; only about one in four of eligible households were able to get help.
10,000 low‐income veterans will not receive housing vouchers to prevent homelessness. This would cut in half the number of veterans who would have received such housing assistance this year, despite HUD estimates that 135,000 veterans are homeless.
10,000 people with significant long‐term disabilities would lose the rental assistance they now receive through the Section 811 voucher program (now, 14,000 people with disabilities receive vouchers); most of these would lose their homes.

Source: Coalition on Human Needs

Blog: Hitting the “Reset” Button on the Budget

Casey Schoeneberger

Mar 11, 2011

Senator Chuck Schumer called on Congress to press the “reset button” on budget negotiations during a speech this week at the Center for American Progress. Responding to the Republicans’ desire for draconian cuts, Sen. Schumer pointed out the absurdity of trying to fix the gaping deficit hole by solely cutting spending for programs that make up just 14% of the budget. Sen. Schumer called for all options to be on the table—including oil, gas and agricultural subsidies, along with the necessity to reform Medicaid and Medicare programs.

A vote for the House Republican spending proposal, H.R 1, along with a vote on the Senate Democratic continuing resolution, failed in the Senate late Wednesday. With the failure of this legislation, Congress can now get to work on a realistic, responsible plan to fund the government for the remainder of FY 2011. The current resolution funding the government expires March 18. This short timeframe leaves Congress with less than eight days to come to a practical compromise that takes a hard look at revenue, tax expenditures, and inefficient subsidies—without jeopardizing the safety and security of low-income people or our economic recovery.

When even young children are threatened with cuts that eliminate 218,000 spots in Head Start, or when veterans stand to lose 10,000 housing vouchers that prevent homelessness, my eyes are wide open for a sign that there are better days ahead. With any luck, the failure of both parties’ respective bills will force Congress to press the “reset” button on deficit reduction negotiations, and we will begin to see the tide turning towards responsible investment for the future of America.

Blog: The Budget Reflects Our Values

Fr. John S. Rausch

Mar 20, 2011

Last February when the U.S. Catholic bishops wanted to underscore the morality involved in budget priorities, they asked Stockton Bishop Stephen Blaire to write members of Congress.

“On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,” he wrote as chairman of their Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, “we call on Congress to place the needs of the poor, the unemployed, the hungry, and other vulnerable people first in setting priorities in the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Appropriations Resolution.”

His comments drew strident criticism from numerous Catholics admonishing him and other bishops to steer clear of political involvement and to see their job as saving souls, promoting subsidiarity and avoiding socialism. Eventually, the budget axe did chop fingers and toes, sometimes arms and legs, off the programs championed by the bishops.

Church-going people easily get wrapped in discussions about deficits and debt framed around individualism and entitlements. Many ask: hasn’t individual freedom created the wealth in America? Don’t billionaires and mega-millionaires need tax cuts to create new jobs? Won’t entitlements bankrupt the U.S. in the future? Admitting no simple answers, these types of questions distract from the deeper questions and fuel the wrangle that is polarizing the country.

For people of faith the bishops are right to flag the morality of budget priorities. A budget actually reflects society’s values. It quantifies the importance of what to cut and what to cultivate. But, the bishops’ perspective rests on the common good and the enhancement of community, not simply the enrichment of the individual. In essence, the budget process asks what kind of community we want to promote.

For three decades the U.S. has experienced a redistribution of wealth–upward. Between 1979 and 2008 the top 1 percent saw their income increase by 224 percent, while the bottom 20 percent experienced a 7 percent loss in theirs. Currently, the top 1 percent get nearly a quarter of the nation’s income and control 40 percent of the wealth. Just 25 years ago that top group held 33 percent of the wealth and took 12 percent of the nation’s income. The result: society today mirrors the inequality just prior to the Great Depression.

Observe: with wealth comes power. Translated into politics, the super-rich can inordinately influence legislation and special interest tax breaks. Lower tax rates on capital gains, largely benefitting the super-rich, shift the tax burden to other sectors of the economy, or beg for budget cuts. These cuts, together with free trade agreements sucking manufacturing jobs overseas, force “the poor, the unemployed, the hungry, and other vulnerable people” whom the bishops want to protect, to face their own financial tsunami.

The mantra “Smaller Government, Less Taxes” fits easily on a bumper sticker, but the average total U.S. income tax rate (combining federal, state and local) ranks lower than 24 other industrialized nations. Bank of America paid no U.S. income taxes in 2009 & 2010. Boeing, recording profits of $9.7 billion over the years 2008-2010, actually received a tax rebate of $75 million during those years.

A vibrant democracy requires healthy educated citizens who can participate in the political process. A tax system based on the ability to pay–favored by popes and bishops for over a century–will raise the revenue so everyone can have a place at the table.

Should Congress cut funding for Head Start, the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program, the Global Health and Child Survival Account, Hunger Free Communities Grants, or the Peace Corps? People of faith ask: do these programs reflect profligate spending, or our better angels?

Blog: We Must Speak Out Against Immoral Budget Cuts

We Must Speak Out Against Immoral Budget Cuts

By Simone Campbell, SSS

April 12, 2011

Yesterday I participated in a press conference with Senator Mark Begich from Alaska and other faith leaders. We spoke out against the House Republican Budget proposal that will add dramatic financial burdens to the elderly, families, and children while continuing to give BIG tax give-aways to millionaire and billionaire Republican campaign contributors. I thought that I was hardened to Washington ways and could not be shocked by the political shenanigans. But I am shocked!

I am shocked that the Republicans want to give untold millions of dollars to the insurance industry and add to the financial burden of senior citizens by privatizing Medicare. I am shocked that amid the rhetoric of reducing the deficit, all of the savings from cutting safety net programs goes to reducing corporate taxes on companies that are already not paying their fair share to support our nation. I am shocked that these allegedly pro-life, pro-family Republicans are dramatically cutting nutritious food for poor women and their infants. These allegedly pro-life Republicans are cutting Community Health Centers that provide essential health services to many low income families AND they want to shift this “savings” to augment high CEO salaries. I am shocked that the Republicans are yet again setting up class warfare by increasing corporate welfare.

But I for one, while shocked, will not be silent. And I know that our members around the country and other sane people will stand up for our nation’s soul. We are once again at a crossroads. I urge all of us to stand up and demand that our representatives speak for ordinary Americans. It is not immoral to be wealthy, but it IS immoral to starve low wage workers, widows, orphans, mothers, and children. We must make our voices heard and reveal the immoral scheme of the corporate serving, campaign contributor rewarding policies of the Republican budget proposed by Congressman Ryan.

Blog: Standing Together for Economic Justice

Simone Campbell, SSS

April 14, 2011

I am grateful that President Obama spoke out yesterday about what is at stake in our nation. I agree that we as a nation need to focus on the thread of our relationships that bind us together into community. As he noted, it is tempting at times to think that we live this life alone and we get what we earn individually. But the truth is that we are interdependent. The top 1% of our population who have amassed so much wealth over the last 30 years are totally dependent on the workers in the country for creating that wealth. We are all dependent on the transportation and educational systems that have enabled us to build our nation. We are all dependent on these systems supported by our tax dollars.

In order to protect their wealth, I believe that the richest folks should be interested in a real safety net that allows for low wage workers to live in dignity. Social Security and Medicare are two programs that keep senior citizens who have worked all of their life out of dire poverty. This is a program that is necessary because employers neither pay enough to allow workers to save for their retirements nor provide healthcare benefits once they do retire. These two programs, paid for by workers, need to be protected from short sighted politicians who want to trash them for quick political gains. The wealthy should say no to this and certainly the rest of us should too.

I was glad to hear President Obama say that our nation is called to integrated sense of the common good into public policy. I would have gone farther and said that it is time workers received salary increases and that our faith calls of “those who have two coats to share one with those who have none.” I would add that those who have two houses, two cars, two boats, etc., are in the best position to invest in our nation. It is a good faith practice, but it also is needed to keep our country strong. The president articulated a good beginning, but we must do more to ensure that billionaire campaign contributors do not have an iron grip on the soul of our nation. Rather, it is the broad 90% of us that know we must stand together and invest in our future. This is a plan and a tax policy that makes sense.