Fixing a Problem that is difficult to define:
I thought I would address this often controversial topic briefly tonight in the blog. A couple of items of I've recently seen have brought it to the front of my mind. Notably, The Pursuit of Happyness, the film Kate & I saw was an excellent movie about how monetary and debt problems can spiral out of control. While the protagonist and his son found themselves spending a several nights on the street, the homeless people that we typically encounter tend not to be those suffering from these consequences. This lifestyle typically is a choice, albeit one made in an unstable mental state. Perhaps it is drug addiction, gambling or a series of other vices that has led them to value supporting these parasitic life choices, over what a normal person would view as important. There are many people who have families etc. and are employed, however their homelessness, while problematic is something that tends to be temporary rather than chronic. You'll find that politicians and certain organizations will gloss over this, or report the information in a manner which would cause a different interpretation.
The second item causing me to revisit the issue of homeless was a letter to the editor in the Boston Metro (The free tabloid trash handed out on the subway which makes college newspapers seem like finely crafted examples of the printed press). This letter was titled "Billions could go toward beggars" At this point... I can't help it, I'm already a little miffed. So I continue reading and the REAL thing that got me was the following portion:
"There is no excuse for anyone to have to beg for anything in a society that can spend money on replacing perfectly good public buildings (City Hall) or spend double-digit billions putting two miles of highway underground (Big Dig) or plan to spend $1 billion on a new football stadium (in Texas). Multiply this kind of spending by all of the major cities"
I found it ironic that she chose "The Big Dig" and "City Hall", two projects created by Democrats (Dukakis for the Big Dig, Menino for the idea of a new City Hall). Two Democrats that I'm almost certain would call themselves advocates for the homeless. Democrats, tend to be the primary endorsers of giant unnecessary public works projects. (Although NO-ONE with an ounce of sense would refute the necessity of redesigning and constructing Boston's former decrepit central artery, now known as the "Big Dig".) Democrats support bond issues and increased spending on public works because it is a form of social welfare which can be trace back in the party all the way to FDR, who really made a big splash using this practice with the New Deal.
An idealistic world, we could let our bridges crumble and give all that money to people who aren't standing on solid ground, however if we didn't have bridges, it would hurt commerce. If we didn't have football stadiums, less hot dogs, beer, and merchandise would be sold and made. All of this would reduce the work force. Construction of facilities like stadiums, yes... and even a new city hall provide a steady flow of income into our economy. So what Margo Cotham proposes to do INSTEAD is to take the money that would be used to improve the lives of arguably, millions of people... and just split several billion dollars amongst the several thousand homeless (and actually she just specified beggars, so that probably whittles it down to a couple hundred) in Boston. They'll all be making six figures.... 1,000,000,000/10,000= $100,000.00.
What irritates me is the level of naivete in her letter, her view about the homeless situation is about as complex as George W. Bush's view to solving the problems in the Middle East (e.g. It's kind of lacking, shall we say, SHADES OF GREY?)
Singling out beggars really irks me, because there have been multiple studies showing that they actually make fairly good money. This is why they do it. Most homeless people do not engage regularly in begging. As someone who works in a neighborhood with a methadone clinic, I see the same 5-6 people working the same spots all the time. If all homeless people had to resort to begging as Margo implies, there would not be a city block in the city without 2-3 homeless people out there asking for change.
The following is an Abstract from PubMed (NIH) on panhandling:
People vote and think too much too often with their hearts. And it is good to want to help people and it is good to be sensitive. However, we must, WE MUST, remember that it is a tough world. Sacrifices must be made, and while we can bend over backwards to help people, only so much can be done.
This being said, I believe more can be done to rectify the homeless problem, however it is unlikely it will ever be completely eradicated.
Amongst ideas that are worth exploring: Replacing Methadone Clinics, with Heroin Clinics; Restoring Mental Health Facilities removed in decades past; further engaging the homeless to employ them; further explore assistance to religious charities; Discharge planning from correctional facilities.
I also want to point out that the problem of homelessness is tarnished by propaganda and politicians who will use the plight of these people to support their pet projects and careers. These people have been taking in larger sums of money for years, and yet apparently little of this seems to actually help the victims.
To make my point of the load of crap out there here are a few contradictions:
Freedonation.com says: According to statistics from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, up to 600,000 men, women and children go homeless every night in the United States alone.
Almanac of Policy issues says: On any given night in America, anywhere from 700,000 to 2 million people are homeless, according to estimates of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.
National Alliance to end homelessness: Most Americans underestimate how the problem of homelessness affects families. About 600,000 families and 1.35 million children experience homelessness in the United States. (apparently the former two sites either consider families 1 person, or... perhaps children aren't people... or this number is inflated? naw... couldn't be.)
NLCHP claims: Over the past year, over 3 million men, women, and children were homeless.
How many people are homeless? Why? Over a five-year period, about 2–3 percent of the U.S. population (5–8 million people) will experience at least one night of homelessness. (OK now... we are getting to the route of things... "one night of homelessness"---- What qualifies someone as homeless... and how are statistics being warped to suggest an inflated number? Does staying at a friend's, a hotel or motel, between leases qualify you as homeless for a night? If so it shouldn't. What if you had to sleep in your car for a night.... that would suck, but would that make you homeless?)
So... the politicizing of the issue, which I'm not certain is always done with the best interests of the chronically homeless, or those between leases with no means of paying for a place to stay.... This exploitation, I believe hardens many on the right to not take this issue as seriously as they should. For people like Margo Cotham, who want to speak with an activist's rhetoric in regards to the issue, I wish they would get a hold of their passion, so that they do not inflict more harm than good to their cause.
I for one, would like to see some accountability from politicians. And I think organizations which receive increased government funding to fight this battle should have to show how they've used the funds to help their cause. Otherwise we may as well just be digging another several faulty tunnels.
No comments:
Post a Comment