Legal Aid in Nevada

 

I read with dismay an article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal (July 9, 1996) called "Activists blast GOP plan to cut legal aid funding" written by Caren Benjamin and the paper's editorial the following day voicing its support of the cuts (drudging up old stories by the conservative Heritage Foundation).  It is bad enough that the "tax cut" frenzy has, for the past 15 years or so, most adversely affected the most disadvantaged sectors of our society while simultaneously favoring the richest sector of society.  Now they want to cut back even further social spending on legal aid for the disadvantaged, which will be especially harmful to women experiencing domestic violence in addition to those who are single-parents (who are most often poor).

Meanwhile, the rich keep getting richer, largely as a result of the so-called "tax cuts."  For instance, according to several sources, including the U.S. Census, during the 1980s the richest 1% of the population experienced a gain in income of 122%, while the poorest 20% of the population had a loss of 10%; meanwhile, the share of the total wealth of the richest 1% increased so that at present they have almost one-half of all the wealth in the U.S..  How did they do this?  According to a study by Donald Bartlett and James Steele ("America: What Went Wrong?"), as a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, those earning $1 million or more in salary experienced a tax cut of 31%, while whose earning between $500,000 and $1 million saw their taxes fall by 34%.  Meanwhile, middle and lower income people saw only modest tax cuts of between 6% and 16%.  Further, the corporate share of the tax burden continued its steady downward spiral, from around 39% in the 1950s to about 17% in the 1980s.  Finally, total salaries of people earning more than $1 million went up by 2,184% during the 1980s, compared to a more modest increase of 44% for those earning between $20,000 and $50,000. Meanwhile, wages in constant dollars have actually declined for the majority of the population.  There are many other studies that further support the data reported by Bartlett and Steele (such as a 20th Century Fund report by Edward Wolff called "Top Heavy" and conservative columnist Kevin Phillips' book "The Politics of the Rich and Poor").

Perhaps the most curious statement contained within the Review Journal article was one attributed to Rep. John Ensign who, along with Barbara Vucanovich, voted in favor of the cuts to legal aid.  He is quoted as saying:  "Big government answers are not the answers to everything.  It is incumbent upon states and communities to reach out and help those who need it the most."  This statement is curious because Mr. Ensign should know all about what is commonly referred to as "welfare for the rich," which varies from $60 billion to $167 billion per year, depending upon the source (Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, Ralph Nader's group, Public Citizen or the Cato Institute).  Kevin Philips writes that tax breaks to the very rich and to corporations is the third fastest growing part of the federal budget and may exceed $4 trillion during the next seven years.  Thus, according to Rep. Ensign, "big government" should not be helping ordinary people, since, after all, people of his class and social position need it the most, a point that escapes most commentators.

All of this is nothing new to anyone who has done any careful reading of history.  Without "big government" stepping in to help out, corporations would never have succeeded to the extent that they have.  I suppose it is, as the old saying goes, "socialism (or welfare) for the rich and free enterprise for everyone else."  Of course one could argue that such huge benefits going to big corporations eventually "trickle down" to everyone else in the form of good paying jobs, benefits, job security, etc.  But I don't think this argument works anymore.

 

Written July 16, 1996 and submitted to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, but never published

 

Update:In March, 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of keeping the nation=s second largest program of legal aid to the poor (Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington).  This was in response to an attempt by conservatives to get rid of the program.  The program helps provide legal assistance to poor people in a wide variety of legal matters, including domestic violence, elderly consumers who have been defrauded, in addition to criminal matters.  In 1981 Congress approved a novel method of funding such a program by funneling small amounts of interest earned on trust funds held briefly by lawyers and sometimes from escrow accounts.  During 2002, about $200 million was generated from this fund.  (Another fund, created by Congress, provides $338 million per year to the Legal Services Corporation.)

The very powerful conservative group called the Washington Legal Foundation wanted to scrap the program by attempting (starting 11 years ago) to have it declared unconstitutional.  The justification was summarized perfectly by Daniel Popeo, the foundation=s legal counsel who, in a classic overstatement of the issue, said: AWe can deal a death blow to the single most important source of income for radical groups all over the country.@  A nonsensical statement if there ever was one!  I wonder what Aradical groups@ he was referring to?  Since when is it Aradical@ to try to in some small way level the playing field a bit, as those with means have no problem seeking justice in the nation=s courts, while the vast majority of citizens of modest means or who are living in poverty have little or no access to the courts. 

The case that was brought before the Supreme Court began in Seattle where the plaintiff had deposited $90,521 into an escrow account for only two days back in 1997, which earned a grand total $4.96 in interest!  A federal judge in Seattle determined that the plaintiff did not lose any money because it would have cost him more to set up a checking account for the two days.  The former U.S. Solicitor General in the Reagan administration (Charles Fried) appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that this program amounts to Ataking private property for public use without just compensation,@ in violation to the 5^th Amendment.  Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said AJust compensation for a net loss of zero is zero.@  Justice Antonin Scalia said, in dissent, that this was like a ARobin Hood@ in reverse, Ain which the government=s extraction of wealth from those who own it is so cleverly achieved and the object of the government=s larcenous beneficence is so highly favored by the courts (taking from the rich to give to indigent defendants) that the normal rules of the Constitution protecting private property are suspended.@ (Source: David G. Savage, ALegal Air Survives Challenge in Supreme Court,@ Los Angeles Times, March 27, 2003.)

It is somewhat ironic that on this same date the United States Senate passed a budget that included a $350-billion tax cut, most of which will go directly to the wealthiest individuals.  President Bush=s original proposal was for $725 billion and he, of course, expressed his disapproval, for apparently he and his rich cronies wanted even more (Janet Hook, ASenate Passes Budget With $350-Billion Tax Cut,@ Los Angeles Times, March 27, 2003).  Talk about ARobin Hood in reverse@!

This is the standard conservative argument about Aprivate property.@  If many conservatives had their way, there would be no taxes at all and all the Apublic@ services (police, fire, road maintenance, sewers, schools, etc.) would be in Aprivate@ hands.  These same conservatives think nothing of taking, in the form of Acorporate welfare,@ billions of dollars from taxpayers. 

 

For more about  corporate welfare and inequality see the references below.

 

For further reading:

 

Collins, C., B. Leondar-Wright, and H. Sklar. 1999  Shifting Fortunes: The Perils of the

Growing American Wealth Gap.  Boston: United for a Fair Economy.