Growth & Justice Blog

How we can help the poor help themselves, and our economy, Selvaggio-style

Joe Selvaggio is a celebrated former priest who has spent nearly half a century helping poor folks become more productive and less poor,  lately through the MicroGrants program and before that, Project for Pride in Living. 

He also recently authored one of the most inspiring and articulate cases I've ever seen for investing in the human potential of our large and growing underclass.   His powerful essay appeared in the Star Tribune on Sunday Nov. 18, and was headlined "Think of the poor as part of the solution: They're a source of economic growth. That's why we can afford to help them.''

Selvaggio is the soul of charity but he's not a naive do-gooder who sees poor folks as purely victims.  And he argues that they ultimately are responsible for grabbing on and pulling up on the hands that are  offered from public and non-profit workforce training providers.  And he also concludes that governments need to invest more in broad-based self-sufficiency and productivity efforts instead of just focusing on direct aid and entitlements.    Citing the success of the Harlem Children's Zone and other non-profits such as Twin Cities Rise! and Summit Academy OIC, Selvaggio notes:  

"Entitlements seem to be anathema to the right, left and center.  But job-training programs are politically acceptable to left, right and center.   The private nonprofit sector has proven that they work, but philanthropy can't do it alone.  Now it's time for government to put muscle behind them...Change the paradigm and think of the poor as locked in a cocoon, ready to develop into a productive creator of wealth.''

Our policy-makers in Minnesota need to find what's working best in in preparing and moving chronically unemployed or under-employed folks in to the decent jobs that are being created in our new economy and right in their communities,  whether it's health-care, transportation, financial industries, or construction.   Growth & Justice is beginning a project that will illuminate those models.   And our legislators and other elected officials must be ready and willing to invest in them.   Because this really is an investment that pays off for everybody.

 

Dane Smith   

 

 

A seasoned conservative briliantly explains the larger historic sweep

Some of the most interesting election aftermath analysis is coming from seasoned conservatives with a broader view of the sweep of history, and nobody since Nov. 6 has laid this out with more panoramic vision than David Frum. In this CNN excerpt from his larger explanation of why Romney lost, Frum dismantles the notion perpetrated by many on Fox News, and Mitt Romney himself, that America is now lost to entitlement "takers."

"America is not a society divided between 'makers'' and 'takers.' Instead, almost all of us proceed through a life cycle where we sometimes make and sometimes take, as we pass from schooling to employment to retirement. The line between 'making' and 'taking' is not a racial line. The biggest government program we have, Medicare, benefits a population that is 85% white...The United States did not vote for socialism. It could not do so, because neither party offers socialism. Both parties champion a free enterprise economy cushioned by a certain amount of social insurance. The Democrats (mostly) want more social insurance; the Republicans want less. National politics is a contest to move the line of scrimmage, in a game where there's no such thing as a forward pass, only a straight charge ahead at the defensive line [and] whatever you think of the Obama record, it's worth keeping in mind that by any measure, free enterprise has been winning the game for a long, long time to this point."

Frum then describes in some detail 50 years of movement away from government regulation and high marginal federal income tax rates, which happened under Democrats and Republicans. He notes that Marxism was still a live intellectual force in the early 1960s and is now in complete retreat and disrespute internationally. Frum doesen't get into the most important underlying fact of all: the alleged "makers" in the top 1 percent (or 5 percent or 10 percent) have "taken" almost all the growth in the economy over the last decade and now have a greater share of income and wealth than at any time since the Great Depression.

Finally, Frum harshly chastises the racial animosity implied in some post-election commentary and his points remind me of the more embracing brand of Republican philosophy that prevailed in Minnesota from our early statehood under Abraham Lincoln (can't wait to see the movie), through Govs. John S. Pillsbury, Harold Stassen and  Arne Carlson.

"To assume from the start that only certain ethnicities will contribute, and that others aspire only to grab, is not only ugly prejudice; it is also self-destructive delusion. People of all backgrounds want to create, save and contribute to society. A party of the center-right should make them all feel at home, regardless of how they pronounce their last name, the complexion of their skin or the way in which they express love and build family...We need more sensible conservatives. As for the feeble conservatives, they should take a couple of aspirin and then stay quietly indoors until the temper has subsided and they are ready to say and do something useful again."

Amen.

--Dane Smith

 

 

Voters want the reasonable middle ground

Elections can be a surprise, and this latest was for me, on both the national and state level, a very pleasant surprise. I've been weary of the "devil take the hindmost" style of political brinkmanship that seems to have become commonplace in Washington and at the State Capitol. I don't care who's to blame, or even that everyone or no one is to blame. I just want a group of legislators willing and able to identify the plights of the people -- all the people -- and addressing them with creative, nonpartisan solutions that are effective and cost efficient.

One thing our recent elections show is that the voting public, as an electorate, is only several degrees on either side of middle ground. And, our votes will swing in favor of one party or the other based on how far the party in power has strayed from the middle. We are not against government, but only ineffective, inefficient government that wastes tax dollars. We are not against regulation, but want regulations that are patently fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and not arbitrary. And, we are not at all against taxes, but only taxes that burden us without adequate demonstration that our tax dollars are being spent efficiently for the good of all.

The clear message to politicians everywhere is that they don't stray too far from the middle. The people want government and expenditures focused on things that matter to the mainstream, and that both improve lives and make it easier to live, work and play in their own communities. Our newly elected political leaders should be thinking long and hard about that, and less or not at all about sticking it to the other political parties for paritsan gain.

--David F. Fisher

(Note: David F. Fisher is a new member of the Growth & Justice Board of Directors, and is Executive Director of the Corporate Institute at the University of Minnesota Law School. He was commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Administration under Independence Party Gov. Jesse Ventura.)

Stunning victory for voting rights and civil rights, and historic perspective on partisan control

Two big obvious takeaways from Nov. 6.

By larger margins than anyone dreamed possible, Minnesotans rejected proposed amendments to the state constitution that would have done damage to voting rights, civil rights and human rights in Minnesota. It truly was a historic day, perhaps a turning point, as Minnesota moves forward to re-establish its reputation as a progressive and tolerant state, one that aims to realize the full potential of all its people.

And as a political reporter whose job it was to offer analysis after elections, I'm wondering whether someone will assess what may be a historic level of partisan control. I've noticed a couple media reports noting that the Legislature and governor's office are in DFL hands for the first time since 1990. But with control now of both U.S. Senate seats (Republicans had both U.S. Senate seats through the 1980s), both chambers in the Legislature, all statewide constitutional offices, and 5 of 8 congressional seats, this may be the most landscape controlled by the DFL since the late 1970s. Hubris and arrogance about a mandate are not advised. In 1978, Republicans swept back in to power with the Minnesota Massacre, in a harbinger of the "Reagan Revolution" nationally two years later.

--Dane Smith