The Tax Bill’s Fundamental Flaws

To the Editor:

As someone who has spent the last four years raising over $15-million and thousands of pounds of food to benefit the 250 foodshelves in the state of Minnesota, I am concerned about the way in which our lawmakers are trying to create the civil society of today and tomorrow (“Tax Bill Shows Appeal of Charities,” August 26).

Fundamentally, there is a question with which we at Minnesota FoodShare wrestle: Is it the role of the local community or of the government to insure that everyone has access to the food they need? As a collaboration of Jewish and Christian organizations, Minnesota FoodShare seeks to insure that everyone has access to the food they need, both by insuring that nearly 2,500 congregations participate in the annual March FoodShare Campaign, where over $4-million and hundreds of pounds of food are raised each year, and by engaging public-policy issues, such as funding for food stamps for legal immigrants; the Women, Infants, and Children program; school breakfasts; and summer food programs.

FoodShare feels strongly that the responsibility of creating and sustaining a civil society is shared by “the people” and “our” government. However, the tax bill recently passed by Congress, and vetoed by President Clinton, tries to shift an increasing amount of responsibility on “the people” so as to lighten the burden on “our” government. As your article so clearly articulates, “with the bill, Congress demonstrated that it wants to help non-profit groups raise more and more money — in part so that charities can relieve some of the burdens on government.”

In her book Sweet Charity?: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement, Janet Poppendieck articulates the reason for concern about such a significant shift. As food pantries and food banks become better and better at raising money and food, the government feels less and less compelled to support food and nutrition programs, so that during the welfare-reform debate, there was actually political mud-slinging over funding of the National School Lunch Program, while other food and nutrition programs saw cuts or a leveling of their funding. In fact, it is estimated that the welfare-reform act of 1996 cut $56-billion over five years in welfare costs, one-half of which came directly out of food and nutrition programs.

Let us all be careful, as we become increasingly professional in our work — and, therefore, more concerned about being the best fund raiser that we can be — to not lose sight of our mission. It is not about creating more vehicles for donors so that we can raise more money. Rather, our mission is about serving people. Whether we are helping to provide access to food, shelter, health care, or education; or providing opportunities to participate in the arts; or any of the other projects we are involved in, we must keep our focus on our mission: to serve people.

Our mission, then, helps us to participate in making society more civil. Therefore, our goals are two-fold: (1) to raise the funds so that we can be a partner in making society more civil; and (2) to make “our” government — if indeed it is “our” government — be an actively engaged partner with us.

Rev. Christopher B. Morton
Director
Minnesota FoodShare
Minneapolis