Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1936-01-09
PENSION BILL
STILL ARGUED
Old Folks May Get More
Publicity Than Pension
it Appears.
Public Hearings and Other
Legislative Matters Oc-
cupy Lawmakers Time.
BY HJALMAR PETERSEN,

Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota
week of Dec. 80 to Jan. ~
So many things have happened and
with such alarming rapidity since the
writer's last letter that it is difficult
to grasp the significance of events
and to predict the outcome of pend
ing legislation. Recovering after
weeks recess, the Senate lost no time
in getting down to business by ad-
vancing all bills on general orders
to the calendar.
Exposed to legislative fire for the
first time, the conservative sponsored
old age pension bill, which provides
for the counties to share the costs
and, a maximum $50 pension for needy
persons 65 years old. was up for de-
bate. The committee bill, labeled
Senate File 143, is compromise bill
which virtually scrapped the more
liberal minority bill. 1t now appears
that the old folks will get more
publicity than pension. The saddling
of one-fourth of the cost of the old
age pensions upon the counties will
be felt in an increased property tax
and sponsors of the bill do not deny
this fact Senator B. G. Novak of st.
Paul, offered an amendment which
would reduce the counties share of
the cost to one-eighth. The amend
ment was rejected.
NOvak Leads Fight.
AS a matter of fact, Senator Novak
lead the fight in the Senate to liber-
alize the committee old age pension
bill anC, offered amendment after
amendment, intended to liberalize the
provisions of the act, but the forces
of reaction, well organized and in
the majority at all times, voted down
each amendment as it was offered.
Amendments which were defeated
overwhelmingly would, have raised
the maximum monthly allowance to
S45 and placed the administration
exclusively with the State Board of
Control
The only administration group
amendment adopted was one by Sen
ator Mcleod of Grand Rapids, a re-
quirement of one years residence in
the county before applications could
be approved. The Senator pointed out
that unless residence restriction
were required. pension applicants
could flock to wealthy counties and
burden them far beyond their capa-
city to pay.
Section 9 of the committee bill,
which contained the lien clause" CIV
ing county governments priority of
claim against the estate of deceased
pensioners, was the subject of pro-
longed debate. Senator Ruotsinoja OBJ
jected to government acquisition of
the property of persons who have
spent long years acquiring home
stead and who, upon death, would
have nothing to leave to their chill
dren, even though they had applied
for and accepted pensions.
Deadlocked for Two Hours.
The Senate was deadlocked for
more than two hours through absence
Of several members, and when the
missing appeared further change in
the amendment failed by tie vote,
30 to 80.
To settle the question, which was
held likely to provoke further argu-
ment when the entire Senate men,
bership could be present. plan pro-
posed by Senator Wright of Mime
apolis. was approved. This was de-
signed to give the governmental agen-
cies a common claim against the
property Of deceased pensioners, plac-
ing the government on a footing of
equality with other creditors. This
was adopted by vote of 81 to "a.
The Senate bill as finally o. KID
will be nothing to brag about and,
without question, will be subject to
many amendments in the House. In
fact. the House bill recommended for
passage, while still 'pauper BILL"
is much more liberal in it's interpre-
tation of what an old age pension
really should be. But at its best, it
will be decidedly poor campaign ma
terial for the House member who is
seeking reelection on the strength
of having supported it.
Raising the Revenue.
Pending the passage of the so-called
old age pension bill is the necessary
legislation to finance the same, and
here is another battle. The states
share of the cost must be realized
from some source and the manner
in which it will be raised will be the
bone of contention. 1t is a foregone
conclusion that the portion of the
cost saddlec, on the counties must be
raised by an increased tax on real
estate. And this is not so good for
(Continaed On Psse 81