 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Letters Funding cuts hurt farmworkers Editor: The Illinois Migrant Council welcomed your addressing the life of migrant farmworker families in Princeville in your August issue (page 10). The economic, health and social conditions encountered by farmworkers throughout the state vary considerably; the vast majority of farmworkers are struggling on very low incomes. Many work for short periods to try to earn sufficient wages to live on for the rest of the year. Many travel to Illinois in the hopes of work that has disappeared due to agricultural changes or poor weather. Most, unlike those covered in your article, are not eligible for unemployment compensation. The proposed federal changes mentioned in your article will have a far greater impact than noted. Not only will legal immigrants be affected but also U.S. citizens by changes in other federally funded programs in job training, migrant education, health and social services. Prior to a national mandate to serve farmworkers, there were few, if any, community resources available to migrant families. Federally funded programs have often been the only source for basic essentials. The kind of migrant life depicted in The Grapes of Wrath or in the television documentary Harvest of Shame could very well return to America. The funding cuts, elimination and/or block granting being proposed for these federal programs will significantly affect Illinois' farmworker population. Under block grants, it becomes the state's responsibility to recognize the contributions made by migrant and seasonal farmworkers to its economy. And it will be the state that must decide whether to ignore the needs of farmworkers.
Eloy Salazar Distorts facts for hype Editor: Cara Jepsen in her article on talk radio (June 1995, page 10) demonstrated that she can distort facts for the purpose of hype as well as any talk show radio host. She wrote: "[G. Gordon] Liddy advised his listeners to fire headshots if they're attacked by armed federal agents." What really happened was that Liddy received a phone call on his show from a woman who claimed that ATF agents had, unannounced, smashed into her home, taken her property, including political publications, and stuck a gun in her face saying they would be back. She was afraid if they came back they would kill her. Liddy advised her to get a good lawyer and to get a gun and learn how to use it. But, "if at 3:00 in the morning they use a ram, without announcing who they are, to smash through the door with a shoot first, ask questions later mentality, and you're in your own home from which you are not required to retreat, and you perceive you have a choice to die or defend yourself, well, defend yourself. Otherwise, you'll never get to that jury." And in that context, Liddy said, one defending their home should shoot to the head. I don't particularly like Liddy, and don't care to defend him, but print journalists decrying the tone and distortions of talk radio remind me of the pot calling the kettle black.
J. Brian Heller
Block the 'block grants' Editor: I read with great interest Gary McDougal's article, "Welfare: Five reasons why the system resists reform," which appeared in the September issue (page 37). I am an attorney who specializes in welfare law. My clients and I agree that the welfare system is in need of fundamental reform. From what McDougal tells of the efforts of the Governor's Task Force on Human Services Reform, which he chairs, it looks like a promising effort. There is one disappointing assertion in the article, however. That is his support of AFDC block grants. He states: "Illinoisans need the flexibility to design our own systems. In order for us to do that, federal dollars need to be delivered in block grants, with no strings attached." Nothing could be further from the truth. State and federal governments share the financial responsibility for the AFDC program. For every dollar that a state invests, Washington contributes 50 cents. And women and children who meet eligibility requirements are assured of assistance. A block grant, on the other hand, would be disastrous to the state's already-precarious fiscal condition, to the stated goals of the task force, and, more importantly, to the families who need AFDC. Take a closer look and it becomes clear that block grants are really a disguise for massive budget cuts. All of the leading proposals would result in an immediate loss to Illinois of more than $150 million in federal funds. Further, in times of recession, population shifts or natural disaster, Illinois would be left holding the bag. Block grants also fly in the face of the task force goal of "systematic reform" that is "family-centered" and "prevention oriented." Block grants will hinder innovative approaches to welfare reform such as Illinois' Work Pays initiative, primarily because states will be cash-strapped and unable to "invest" in a long-term welfare reform strategy. Wisconsin, a state McDougal points to as having made changes to its welfare program that "show promise," spends three times as much as Illinois on AFDC. Contrary to political rhetoric, block grants have virtually nothing to do with state flexibility in structuring welfare. Ironically, the Republicans' Personal Responsibility Act is based on a block grant system replete with strings attached. McDougal's oversimplified support for welfare block grants, made in the name of flexibility, thus misses some very serious points. For all of these reasons, the move to a block grant system is a very bad deal for Illinois. With so much at risk, I hope that McDougal, his fellow members of the task force, and the Edgar Administration will take a closer look.
John Bouman How to write to us Your comments on articles and columns are welcome. Please keep letters brief (250 words): We reserve the right to excerpt them so that as many as space allows can be published. Send your letters to:
Letters to the Editor
October 1995/Illinois Issues/37 |
|
|