Need help for blog entry: Caring for the poor

[GreenPartyVoter]

I need both the conservative arguments against using the government to care for the poor, and the progressive arguments for it.

Thanks!

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. kickin

[davsand]

2. I dunno what the GOP says about it but I see it as my obligation.

I was on the the property tax review board that worked to strip a local hospital of its property tax exemptions because they were suing poor people, not providing charity care, and generally being buttheads (that last one is my term--not a technical one!)

The fact that they were associated with a religious institution had protected them from examination for a long time. However, we felt it was high time the local community got something back in return for the property tax exemptions the hospital got. They claimed to be a charity but were not acting like one.

What a lot of people don't realize is that even IF you rent your housing you are paying a portion of the property taxes--it is calculated into the rent as an expense to the landlord. Every taxing district has a calculated amount they need to keep everything running (called the levy) and if one landowner doesn't pay it, the rest pick up the tab.

When we went in to examine the policies, financials, and the business practices of that hospital we found that they were doing less than one percent of actual revenues in Charity Care. Our state laws are explicit that property tax exemption for charities must be reserved for places using property for "exclusively" charitable purposes.

Less than ONE percent in charity care is not exclusively charitable, IMO. It would seem that the State of Illinois agrees--they upheld us on our decision to remove tax exemption, and are defending it for us in the appeal hearings (Ongoing, I might add. This is probably headed to the IL Supreme Court before it is all over.)

One of the driving factors in the entire review of the hospital was the realization that our community was subsidizing a business that was taking money out of our local area, as well as preying on the poorest and least powerful members of our society.

As an official (paid by the taxpayers!) I felt I had an obligation to represent their best interests. Predatory lending and ripping off the local tax base seemed like a good thing to stop.

The local GOP hates me with a passion because they see me as picking on a large employer and a religious institution.

The local health care activists are pleased, because what they have been saying for a long time about the predatory activities of this hospital has finally been opened up for inspection.

Finally, the hospital's Board of Directors (made up of the real estate developers and some high status socialites) is unsure how to proceed because the hospital looks awful to public now. They are spending a huge amount of cash with a PR firm to try and salvage their image.

To be honest, the only opinions I care about at all are those of the people tormented by this bunch of parasites. They have told me that they feel like this is the first freaking time the government has EVER done anything for them, that they'd given up hope of ever having a fair shake.

I felt I OWED it to the taxpayers. I still feel that way.


Laura

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Wow! Laura, you are doing so much good in the world. :^)

[davsand]

4. You are kind to say that, however my intent was to point out something.

Yes, I am proud of what we did. It feels good to fight for what I think is the right thing. We are doing something to help our community and in doing that have opened the door to a national discussion about health care policies and what local communities should expect from non-profit hospitals.

That's not too shabby for three "bean counters" who were working 3/4 time salaries in offices without windows. (I now have an office with a window, BTW!)

Something that has amazed hell outta me in all of this, however, is the attitude that so many people have that any government wonk who actually goes beyond the status quo is doing something remarkable. I am staggered by the conviction that so many have that if you are an official you just kind of show up (at best.)

When I was talking to the reporter from the WSJ, she was just blown away at the work we'd put into that case. I got the same feedback from several other folks I've talked to. People see this as something extraordinary because we have all come to think the government doesn't owe us anything.

I am baffled, because I see tax payers as my boss. When did our expectations drop so radically that we see our government as something that we feed--but never see anything from in return?

I took an oath when I took office. I promised to uphold the laws and I promised to treat all fairly. Seemed to me that representing EVERYONE--rich or poor--was part of the bargain.

I have had times when I had elderly widows crying in my office because the taxes on their house were too high. I do what I can to help them, but there have been times when I had no answers. I sent those ladies out in tears because I had to follow the law.

The hospital was not following the law. I had to follow it for them just like I had to follow it for those poor old ladies--there can be no difference in how people are treated.

THAT is a trust placed in those of us of holding office, IMO.

The flip side of all this, is that I have been known to bend over backward to help people FIND a way to make it all work. Large or small taxpayers, they all get the same level of attention. That is another obligation I have.

I think too many people in office have forgotten what they OWE to the people who elected them or at least pay their salary.

You asked in your original post why we have to take care of the poor. I see it as an obligation of office. It is a matter of ethics.


Laura