ILNews

Cuts proposed to LSC budget would affect ILS

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Among approximately 70 proposed budget cuts, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee has proposed cutting $75 million, or 17 percent of the budget for the Legal Services Corporation, which funds 136 civil legal aid programs around the country, the committee announced Wednesday. The full list of proposed cuts is on the committee’s website.

In Indiana, Indiana Legal Services Inc. receives about two-thirds of its funding from LSC. For 2010, ILS received $5.8 million and has budgeted 2011 based on the 2010 budget.

The current and immediate past chairs of the board of LSC, the president of the American Bar Association, and the executive director of ILS have all spoken out against this proposed cut.

Norman Metzger, executive director of ILS, said even a hypothetical 5 percent cut, or about $291,000 if there’s an omnibus budget passed with a 5 percent cut across the board, would be a difficult loss for ILS to handle at this time.

“I’m very concerned,” he said. “We’re stable, but I struggled after three years of convincing my board to give a pay raise. … Any kind of cuts to our funding will be devastating.”

He added that other funding for the organization has taken a hit, including United Way support and other grants the organization receives to make up the other third of its funding.

“Any cut is harmful, but when you combine one cut here with one cut there, it’s even worse,” he said.

Metzger said he’s not sure if there will be a 17 percent cut because the legislative process may change the actual amount and that the budget will still need approval from the U.S. Senate and the president. Something will be decided by early March, and if there is a large cut, he said, it is unfortunate but he will need to make some decisions about ILS-funded programs.

In their statement issued late Wednesday, LSC Board Chairman John G. Levi and Frank B. Strickland, immediate past chair, wrote “Nearly 57 million Americans are now eligible for LSC-funded services and the numbers are growing because of hardships created by the nation’s weak economy. LSC-funded programs are making every effort to extend their resources as far as they can possibly go, but because of the enormous need, they have had no choice but to turn away far too many people because of inadequate resources, as documented by previous Justice Gap Reports issued by LSC. Many of these programs have already suffered a significant decline in state and local funding.”

“This is the time to reflect on the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr: ‘Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building, it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists ... it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status,’” they continued.

ABA President Stephen N. Zack also issued a statement about the proposed cuts.

“Slashing funds that keep working class and poor people from falling into a legal and financial tailspin is not the right decision in this economy. Every cent spent helping families deal with crises such as eviction, child support and custody, or a domestic violence restraining order ultimately saves taxpayer money. Financial and emotional costs grow when problems go unsolved,” Zack wrote. “ … Legal aid providers in every area of the country are already hurting from years of underfunding, worsened by the effects of the recession. That is shocking and unacceptable, and in the name of justice for all, we will not allow it to happen.”

House Appropriations Committee Chair Hal Rogers said the cuts in this bill “will represent the largest reduction in discretionary spending in the history of our nation. While making these cuts is hard, we have a unique opportunity to right our fiscal ship and begin to reduce our massive deficits and debt. We have taken a wire brush to the discretionary budget and scoured every program to find real savings that are responsible and justifiable to the American people. … We will respond to the millions of Americans who have called on this Congress to rein in spending to help our economy grow and our businesses create jobs.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT