Judge blocks welfare cuts
BY HANNAH ALLAM
Pioneer Press
Thousands of poor Minnesotans who rely on the state for help with housing and living expenses were spared a cut in their monthly payments when a judge decided Monday to temporarily block some state welfare reductions set to begin today.
Ramsey County District Judge Judith Tilsen said she would issue a temporary restraining order this week to defer a plan that the Legislature and Gov. Tim Pawlenty said would save the state $22 million through welfare cuts in the next two years.
Welfare-rights advocates said the ruling forestalls devastating financial hardship on many Minnesotans, while supporters of the change condemned Tilsen's move as a setback to the state's attempt to trim spending to help erase a projected $4.2 billion budget deficit.
Tilsen's decision came at a St. Paul hearing on a lawsuit filed Friday by six welfare and food-stamp recipients who claim the state didn't get proper federal approval before introducing changes that could deprive their families of basic needs. Attorneys for the state said they recognize the hardship for some families but there is no legal provision for delaying the changes.
Assistant Attorney General Patricia Sonnenberg warned that some recipients might have to repay the government if a restraining order is issued and the changes are later upheld.
"Unfortunately, this is what the Legislature and the government … require to have happen," Sonnenberg said.
State Sen. Brian LeClair, R-Woodbury, said he is angered by the judge's decision to block the changes, which he said still offer a "great safety net" for low-income Minnesotans. LeClair co-authored the original plan and voted for the changes earlier this year.
"I'm very disappointed that a great effort by Governor Pawlenty to bring Minnesota into the next generation of welfare reform has been blocked in the 11th hour," LeClair said.
Ralonda Mason, a St. Cloud Area Legal Services attorney for the plaintiffs, called the cutbacks the "most sweeping changes" since Minnesota reformed its welfare program in 1997.
The changes would cut benefits for up to 21,000 welfare recipients. Legal Aid Society attorneys said more than 7,000 families would be affected by a provision that shaves up to $125 off payments for each family member with a disability who is not able to work. The state also wanted to consider some federal housing subsidies as income.
In court, Mason mentioned the case of Cleotha Bishop, a mother of three who could lose at least $175 a month if the changes are approved. Bishop, who is not a plaintiff, has a young child who has suffered a heart attack, has stomach problems and needs breathing assistance. For her, Mason said, the changes would be devastating.
"All of her money goes to meeting her family's needs," Mason said. "There's no frills or luxuries or extras in this budget."
About halfway through the hearing Monday, 14-year-old Ann Remington of Cokato, Minn., reached out to give a reassuring pat to her father's shoulder. Tracy Remington, a single parent with cerebral palsy, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
"Sadness," Ann Remington said, explaining what she felt during the hearing. "He's my dad, you know? This has been affecting all our bills. We already went to the (landlord's) office and asked for a rent reduction."
Human Services Commissioner Kevin Goodno said he wasn't surprised by the judge's decision and said he would comply with the order. Human Services officials expected the changes to save the state about $11 million a year.
"We have full confidence that we're in compliance with the federal requirements and also state law and that we in the end will prevail on this issue," Goodno said.
Tilsen, who said she had serious concerns about the legality of some of the changes, ordered the state to restore any cuts already made to welfare recipients within two weeks. The temporary restraining order is scheduled to expire July 21, when attorneys again convene in Tilsen's courtroom for a longer hearing on a more permanent measure.
Shawntale Harrison, 25, of Robbinsdale, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said she was relieved by Monday's ruling and in knowing that she'll get full benefits, even if just for another month.
"For me, it means something won't have to go unpaid," Harrison said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
