Summary of Chicago Discussion Groups

The following is a summary of themes that arose in discussion groups held in the state of Illinois on September 16 through 18, 2002, around federal budget priorities and how to begin a long-term effort to increase domestic investment. This effort is part of a two-year project, called the Social Investment Initiative (SII). A description of the project is available at www.ombwatch.org/sii/. In all of these conversations, there was a real engagement in talking about broad issues of policy, taxes and spending, including insights into how state and community efforts can inform national efforts; effective ways to establish and maintain a network of groups around a broad issue; and, in most cases, the usefulness of a linkage of state and community issues with budget policy at the national level, which has become heightened in importance due to the budget crises of most states, including Illinois. The quality of all of the discussions was high, and we came away with a wealth of information and a real appreciation of the participants for generously sharing their tremendous energy and strategic thinking ability. There was positive support for the SII, although the roles it might best play varied from group to group, and there was a realistic recognition of the difficulties of a sustained engagement of a state and local constituency base around long-term budget process, for which there is little precedent. The groups that had been involved with a recent ad hoc state fiscal coalition were extremely sophisticated about the need for federal budget work, as a direct result of their recent intensive state budget advocacy and the knowledge they had acquired about taxes and budget policy. On the other hand, while one of the neighborhood groups with whom we met was interested in connecting up with national efforts, the other was focused on recognizing and developing local resources within the community, and actively mistrusted federal efforts as disempowering to the community. Many of the community groups and state coalitions are already working on proactive, long-term agendas based on clearly identified priorities, and provide models for how to begin a national effort around budget priorities. In addition to the barriers to engaging in federal budget policy that we identified in Seattle, including a lack of time and resources, and the sheer difficulty of making a difference in federal budget policy, we also heard arguments that, in many cases, it’s not just the need for more domestic investment, but the need for government to do things differently – in particular, more federal attention needs to be paid to the particularity of community needs, as well as employ a more respectful attitude and process (which may require federal oversight into the state administration of programs). However, the need for a coordinated and focused campaign around federal fiscal policy issues, including the responsibility of the federal government to contribute to the well-being of communities, and the impact of federal policy on state and local government and on those who are served by nonprofits was seen as vital right now. The revenue-crunch is only going to get worse and many problems that affect people at the community level can only be solved with increased federal funding. The “Face-on-the-Numbers” project, to develop a nation-wide database of human stories about the usefulness of government programs and the unmet needs that remain, met with consistent enthusiasm, and a number of groups are already doing issue-based stories from which we can draw. Following are some of the broad themes we heard: WORKING IN COALITION
  • There is a need for partnership between state and local groups who understand program administration at the local level and existing or arising needs, and national groups who are experts in the federal budget and/or broad issue areas. For example, when national non-profit groups research and write about state implementation of federal policy without talking to anyone at the state level, they can get it wrong. One participant noted that she was “frequently surprised when I read reports, sometimes they’re written by national researchers… about wonderful things that are happening in Illinois and I know that those things aren’t really happening in Illinois, because right here we know where the rubber hits the road…the implementation whatever that particular policy may be is not near to what it’s sold as…”. National groups are missing a wealth of information and possibilities for collaboration when they only engage state and local groups in short-term, defensive, and issue-specific activities. Conversely, state and local groups can benefit from knowledge about the federal budget, broad national efforts, and specific issue based research that can be accomplished more easily at the national level.
  • A connection between local and state groups and national groups would allow more of a sense of what the budget priorities are, how people see federal resources as being most useful, and, perhaps a way of communicating state experiences so that public officials can make better decisions about what programs work and what programs don’t.
  • State and local nonprofits lack information about much of the national work that is focused on state-by-state impacts and the national groups who do that work. There was support for SII to become a clearinghouse by organizing the information that is already out there on a single website, and, in some cases like academic or think-tank research, putting it in more useful forms that can be used to influence the public, the media and public officials. There may be a need for an educational effort to paint the broad strokes of the federal budget and how it influences state budgets.
  • In addition to the divide between state and local groups and national organizations, there is also a divide between state policy and advocacy groups, service providers, and community based and/or activist efforts. Given the number of active nonprofit organizations working in the Chicago area, it is perhaps not surprising that, often, groups were not familiar with each other. This was especially true between the more mainstream state policy groups and more locally based issue-based or service provider groups. A common knowledge of the groups and campaigns in the Chicago area would seem useful, allowing a linkage between groups to share their particular expertise as issues arise.
  • In order to establish a network of state and local groups engaged in federal budget issues, it is important to make it clear how participation in a larger, long-term effort will bring benefits to state and local issue-based groups. There needs to be a strong, inclusive message about the direct positive impact of getting involved, i.e., that working together to claim a larger share of the federal budget will benefit us all. There already is awareness that achieving more resources for one area often reduces need in another, so it may be useful to give some energy to an issue that will only provide indirect benefits to another issue. One participant noted that it is hard to say no to a cohesive, multifaceted group that can demonstrate some success, if not in increasing funding, at least in preventing cutbacks. An effort that is not issue based can also effectively show the interrelatedness of many issues, i.e., good education requires good nutrition, stable housing, safe communities, health care, and parents who can spend some time with their children; successful employment requires day care, pre- and after-school programs, health care, affordable transportation; or safe and livable public housing should include job training, parenting supports, and drug and alcohol rehabilitation.
  • It will be necessary to think carefully about how to creatively use the different strengths of the groups making up the network. Different groups have different areas of expertise and strengths, whether they are involved in providing services, analyzing policy in particular issue areas or in state budgets, or advocating for or against legislative initiatives.
MESSAGES
  • Messages need to be developed that are succinct and can be easily used by state and local groups over the long-term. Guidance in how to incorporate messages into specific issues and use them in media campaigns should be included.
  • We need to work with the media to start emphasizing the positive role of government in our lives. This can perhaps be done through a non-partisan message around the need for legislative excellence in defining and meeting the country’s priorities.
  • There was a sense that we need to focus on positive efforts and on practical forward-looking policies. People are tired of hearing about what is lacking and want to hear what we intend to do about the problems.
  • Rather than a “deficit model,” we should be looking at communities, including low-income communities, in terms of the assets they already possess and how they can be maximized. How can government enter into partnership with local efforts within the community to support and develop local efforts and initiatives? How can community expertise to take the lead in its own redevelopment be recognized and fostered by the federal government?
Domestic Investment and the Role of Government
  • Framing increased government resources in terms of being good for the economy, or investments in a well-developed workforce as essential for business, or a better public health system as vital to domestic security, may be good ways to get people to think about domestic investment as good for us all, and not just a way to address poverty.
  • The middle class is also insecure, and the SII project must go beyond low-income issues. Many programs, like good and affordable day care, are middle-class issues also. Quality of life is an issue for everyone. Parents should be able to send their children to any school in the country and expect a good education—they shouldn’t have to move to another neighborhood or state or pay for private school.
  • We need to return to great national ideals of a good free education for every child, rich or poor, and expand those ideals to include other big issues like quality health care for every person, or adequate unemployment insurance for all workers.
  • The federal government is the way big things get accomplished. Without the federal government, the civil rights movement, for one example, could never have been accomplished. (And, without action by the federal government, civil rights for the disabled, which is far from a reality, will never be accomplished.) Government needs to engage in a long-term, visionary effort to identify future trends and issues to start developing policies before there is a crisis. The role of the federal government is to identify and support the needs of society. The budget is the way we get resources to do so. Only an activist federal government can insure adequate resources and equity between states and localities to address broad issues like poverty.
  • The sense of needing government, and of not trusting the market, has been highlighted by the terrorist attacks and the examples of corporate malfeasance. As a result of the current economic downturn, people are also recognizing that they too might fall upon hard times and need government support and that they can’t depend on the stock market for protection in our old age.
  • We should expand the meaning of the national “crisis” to the existing crises of people without housing or health care or adequate nutrition. There are catastrophes all over the country that will have a long-term negative impact on us all. We’re not just a collection of individuals; we’re a society, which has been built on certain principles including equal opportunity for everyone to succeed. It is important to play upon this to build up the necessary and positive role of government in this country, and the fact that taxes are the way we all contribute to this common and individual good.
  • Conservatives have successfully taken the high ground in defining national values. We must claim progressive ideals ourselves, and we must show our differences with the conservative interpretations of those ideals. One suggestion was to go back to the writing and speeches of Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson, for instance, to learn to talk about priorities and vision.
  • The market system is the “genius of America,” but we still need a strong public sector. Sometimes, “the invisible hand of the market is all thumbs” and as Jared Bernstein noted “sometimes the unseen hand needs a solid nudge.” Government, the public sector, must step up at certain times when the private sector is inadequate, for instance, when unemployment is high. Government must also address needs that can’t or won’t be met by market forces. At least one group felt that a stronger critique of capitalism was in order, and saw the anti-globalization movement as the beginning of a mass effort to redefine the terms of capitalism.
  • Overall, there is a strong sense that corporate interests have far too much influence over government. As ordinary taxpayers, we need to reclaim government to serve our needs.
  • It is vital to begin to educate and engage the public. We need to encourage civic knowledge and engagement. People need to understand the actual effects on families of budget cuts at the federal level. There needs to be a long-term ideological campaign, which is bold and not defensive. We must figure out how to change the terminology to create messages with the power to show how government spending makes a positive change in the lives of ordinary Americans. We also need to educate people about what is possible. In the words of one participant, “people in the US have a very stunted view of what’s possible.” We should be what Michael Harrington called “the left wing of the possible,” in the sense that public officials can only accomplish what is possible, while the role of activists is to change what is possible.
  • A broad based, long-term effort around social investment must be able to incorporate short-term efforts, tying them into the larger frame. For example, discussions of Medicaid funding can be linked to the need for universal health care or discussions of TANF can be linked to the idea that anyone who works ought to be able to earn enough to be self-sufficient. It may be necessary to concentrate on some broad issues, like universal health care, or a living wage, or expansion of the earned income tax credit, to get people engaged.
  • Successful domestic investment is not just about more resources, but also about good policy. For instance, small businesses in low-income communities may require a longer period to become profitable and federally funded small business loans need to take this into account to be useful in those communities, or, when major “transformations” of public housing are undertaken, there needs to be a mechanism for meaningful input from residents which can be put into practice.
Tax Issues
  • We need to talk more about taxes, how and to whom tax breaks are given, and how taxes redistribute income and provide the resources for a good society. It is important not to get drawn into constant fights about tax cuts, but to remain focused on the investment side, using tax cuts to talk about priorities and trade-offs. Taxes should be spoken of in positive terms of what people get for their tax dollars. Taxes are a moral issue – it’s all very well to say a surplus represents “the people’s money,” but what happens to those people who have no money to address their needs? We need to grab the fiscal high ground and talk about the taxes in terms of family values.
  • There was not a tremendous amount of energy for rolling back the Bush tax cuts. This may be because it’s not a huge amount of money, or it may be because there is now a lack of political leadership to do so. However, rolling back the tax cuts or fighting against making the Bush tax cut permanent could be a good rallying point to get a coalition together, allowing it to move into more offensive and long-term efforts. This has occurred with the state budget coalition, which came together around a crisis, but was very powerful in educating people about the budget and remains active. Federal budget policy was seen as a very important area for education and advocacy efforts.
  • Some participants felt that it was important to talk about government waste at the same time you talk about taxes. For instance, some programs are duplicative or don’t reach the people they were intended to reach, and that needs to be raised in the effort to rehabilitate government.
  • Issues of corporate malfeasance and the power of corporate influence on government may be a good starting point for talking about restoring a government that serves the priorities of ordinary people. Focusing on corporate tax rebates and corporations not paying their fair share of taxes might also be useful in projecting the importance of everyone paying their fair share of taxes in order to support the services that we all need.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
  • Political leadership is vital, and issues of electoral reform, including public election financing, are important. To truly change budget priorities, we need to elect political leaders who will be accountable to ordinary people. We also need to educate politicians, both as to budget impacts and the broad-based support that exists across the country for domestic investment. This includes state legislators who may not be knowledgeable about the effects of federal budget decisions.
  • The federal role in setting standards and providing oversight is vital and the loss of a strong federal role has been devastating to programs administered on the state level. The federal government must set the floor, and states can exceed that if they want. Leaving it to the states results in inequitable policies. While education should be state-led, with the federal government in a supplemental role, poverty and health care are national issues that require a national response. Devolution has made it clear that, in many cases, the states just can’t cut it alone, and we need to make examples of that clear.
  • It is important to draft legislation. We need to do more than lobby against things; we must create a vision for progressive leaders that can be operationalized. We can’t just ask for more money, but must have viable alternatives to put on the table.
  • In terms of public housing, but likely applicable to provision of many other government services, there is a real need for mechanisms that allow discussion with affected community groups as part of program design. This seems to be the right application of real “local” flexibility, in the sense of paying attention to the constraints and opportunities recipients identify when a program is being designed. This may require more, not less, federal oversight in state administration of block grant programs. Care needs to be taken to develop policies that encourage work, but allow people real opportunities to gradually move towards being self-sustaining, and that recognize the need for and provide a safety net for those who cannot work or earn enough wages to support themselves and their families. SPECIFIC ROLES FOR SII Network Building
    • Helping to build bridges between groups at the national level and state and local levels (and possibly finding ways to acquaint state and local groups with each other).
    • Keeping groups advised via email and a good website.
    • Taking advantage of teleconferencing, email and other new technologies that enable the nationwide networks to be built and sustained. Players may come and go, and different ones will be involved for different legislative strategies or issues, however, there should be a sustained collection of groups over the long-term.
    Clearinghouse and Providing Information
    • Distributing fact sheets. Examples were:
      • Showing the federal dollars that flow to specific programs, so that advocates can say “the federal appropriation is ‘x,’ the state amount is ‘y,’ and we need ‘z’ to make this work.”
      • Itemizing the most important line items that fund important state and national programs.
      • Developing spreadsheets about federal spending and the amount that flows into states.
      • Writing fact sheets about the increasing income inequality or corporate tax breaks using pithy one-liners.
      • Preparing position papers and fact sheets and Q & A on broad issues – summarizing academic or think-tank research so that it can be used more practically.
      • Developing and publicizing computerized budget game simulations that would educate people about the federal budget.
    There was disagreement on the power of numbers to convince people, however, the need to put numbers into context was generally seen as important. For instance, Families USA recently did a report on the increasing number of people without health insurance—while using the actual number of the uninsured from the Census report (41.2 million people), the report also put the number in context by stating that there are more uninsured people than the aggregate population of 23 states plus the District of Columbia. It is useful to find ways to make the numbers make sense. Messages and Media
    • Coordinating efforts and circulating simple message points and accessible leaflets that grassroots and their constituents can use to create an echo chamber, emanating from a variety of groups to legislators and media and the public.
    • Helping to sponsor town meetings, involving media, legislators, nonprofits and the public. Coordinating events that bring national and state groups together, including press conferences, debates at the high school or college level, budget “road shows,” Town Hall meetings, etc.
    • Undertaking a direct mail campaign of information about the federal budget.
    • Assisting by providing sample editorials or letters to the editor, so that groups can access media outlets more successfully. Coordinating efforts to get editorials from state and local groups published in national papers and editorials by national groups placed in state and local papers.
    • There were questions about the name of the project. This points to the need for more work on how best to talk about domestic investment.
    BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY The Social Investment Initiative (SII) is based on the premise that a discussion of federal budget priorities must begin at the state and local level. To make sure from the very start that this project was not a “top-down” effort, we made discussions with a variety of different groups in three or four parts of the country an essential part of the initial research stage. We wanted to find out what people identify as important problems and issues in their communities, states, and in the country; what ideas for solutions they would offer; what, if any, role should the federal government play in addressing these issues and solutions; and whether they might become engaged in federal budget issues, including efforts to roll-back the phasing in of the Bush tax cut, over the long-term. These meetings and interviews were also meant to help us identify leadership for this project. Mostly, though, we wanted to listen – to learn how people outside of Washington, D.C., talk about the budget and federal priorities, how they frame the issues and solutions, and what themes might emerge. Our first set of discussion groups was in the Seattle, Washington area over January 14, 15 and 16, 2002. A summary can be found here. We chose Chicago for our second set of discussion groups because of the wide range of nonprofit groups based there and the often remarked upon political energy and activism. We learned that Chicago is not called the “windy city” just because of the weather but also because of its residents’ attention to political life and active articulation of opinions. We held two discussion groups: one composed of a variety of representatives who were all involved in a state fiscal coalition and the other composed of signatories to a “Covenant for Justice Pledge,” associated with Jobs for Justice; two discussions with issue-based community groups (housing and food); three discussions with issue based state groups (day care and employment), and one discussion with League of Women Voter representatives from the Chicago and Illinois chapters. All of the meetings were held in the city in several different neighborhoods. A full list of participants is available here.
  • back to Blog