When I run for President on the Flora McFlimsey/Ukelele Ike ticket (Surprise Party), here is my plan on homelessness:
Set up drop-in drug & alcohol rehab clinics in all cities and towns over a certain population (a certain number of clinics per 100,000 people). No waiting! C’mon in!
Establish good, safe homeless shelters, with access to counseling and rehab.
Commit the mentally ill whether they like it or not, and no matter how big a cow the ACLU has. In New York, a good propoortion of the homeless are dangerously mentally ill and are headed to certain death unless they get drugs, counseling and looking-after, even if you have to drag 'em in against their will.
None of this will ever happen, of course, which is why Ike and I will just have to take over the country by force (by force of our charming personalities, I mean, and Ike’s dirty sax-playing).
Playing Devil’s advocate - a position I think I am qualified to do…
(1) Some people are homeless because they want to be. I know this sounds odd, but I also know that I have seen many people have tons of opportunities to get off the streets and choose that they prefer living like that, much like some convicts, upon their release, will commit a crime to get back in - They know no other life, and don’t feel the need to.
(2) How would you pay for this program, and have you considered how much it would cost? Would this be faderal or would the states and specific municipalities have to kick in some dinero?
Brian…you doing anything in Fall, 2002? I figure if we can get John Edwards in, maybe we should team up on putting the guy who calls himself by an evil name in place of the one who really is one!
No problemo on the money front, Satan. When I get Power, we’ll hang each and every plutocrat from the nearest lamppost and funnel their capital into the public coffers. Then we’ll nationalize General Motors and make 'em start building bicycles, then close down the Department of Defense and…
Oh, waitaminnit. VICE President. That means I’m going to funerals, not making policy. Where’d I leave my black suit?
Ike, I had planned to put you in charge of Vice–think you can handle it?
Oh, I’d be completely re-vamping the tax laws (and I’m the gal who knows a lot about vamping–just ask Ike!). Those $200 toilet seats and $500 wrenches would go a long way to financing homeless shelters.
Some people are homeless because they want to be . . .
In that case, screw 'em, unless they are obviously deranged and need mental help. If they want to be homeless and don’t want any help, eventually they’ll die off and thin the herd.
(2) How would you pay for this program, and have you considered how much it would cost?
Dunno yet. There’s a lot of tax dollars being wasted and pissed away, enough to go for such programs–the problem would be ferreting out those dollars and redirecting them. It could be done without raising taxes, though it would raise a lot of hackles.
How much tax money is being wasted, in your opinion?
I’ll give you a hint to get you started: The entire operation of the government consumes only 18% of the budget. How much waste do you think you can squeak out of that? Especially considering that salaries make up the bulk of that 18%.
The $500 hammer is a magical device grasped by both conservatives and liberals to be able to claim that they can have all the fancy services they want without anyone having to pay for it. It just ain’t so. I’m no fan of big government, and I know that there is waste there, but the hard, cold reality is that the real money in the government budget is basically payments to individuals and interest on the debt. The price of actually running the government is almost trivial.
So, start cutting. Tell us what’s going to go if you want to be taken seriously. Or at least justify your notion that you can fund a nationwide network of new shelters and rehab programs by cutting waste in government. This is the Straight Dope board, so the fuzzy thinking doesn’t cut it.
To start with, why not have a look at the actual government budget? It’s on the internet (go to your favorite search engine and type “U.S. Federal Budget”). Then figure out roughly how much your shelters are going to cost (not that hard… If you look at the budget, you’ll see the cost for similar nationwide programs), and figure out what you want to replace to pay for it, or at least figure out how much you want to raise taxes by.
This isn’t rocket science. Sit in front of your computer for half an hour and you should have a rough idea of the scope of what you’re talking about. (hint: It’s not going to be cheap. A new federal initiative to curb violence in schools already has a price tag of 3.6 billion dollars).
DHanson…absolutely. You made it quite clear in another thread that there is not a whole lot of “fat” in the Federal budget.
However…figure out what are your priorities. Is it essential to build a new post office here? Are the renovations to that Army base necessary?
Set each GS-12 to GS-15 administrator the requirement that he/she trim 5% of his/her annual budget, without compromising his/her assigned mission.
In place of Federal funds for economic development, grant a tax credit/deduction (50:50) for business investment in designated depressed areas.
Review every foreign aid allocation for its effectiveness in benefiting both the aims of the U.S. and the people of the aided country. Discontinue all those that flunk either test.
Stop subsidizing slumlords by discontinuing paying fair market value HUD Section 8 rental subsidies on substandard properties. Protect the tenants by proscribing eviction pending a revaluation of what fair rent for this particular unit is worth.
And so on. Economies can be made, and they will add up to a fair chunk of the budget. Use this money to start funding the programs that, whenever they’re proposed, you raise this objection to.
I am sure that it won’t be a big chunk of the budget. But I’m sure it will be enough for some of the programs people have suggested.
If you want to spend X number of dollars on a new government program, you neither have to reduce government expenditures by X nor increase government revenue by X! You can have your cake and eat it too, with … deficit spending!
I work with the homeless. We have programs that take them off the streets, find them jobs, get their meds stabilized (those who are mentally ill), teach them living skills, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, get them in housing, assign a fiduciary to handle their finances (those who need it). They continue to receive this support for as long as needed. We basically hold their hands.
Sure, we get the success stories, but it doesn’t work in most cases. Why? Because a large percentage are homeless by choice.
>^,^<
KITTEN
If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.
As a candidate running on the Schizophrenic Party ticket, I promise to institutionalize Flora McFlimsey on the grounds that her brain’s chemistry isn’t working the way mine does. We’ll fix that, though, don’t worry…
:::raising the hypodermic:::
Seriously, lady. You got a lot of nerve deciding to impose changes in the way my brain works without my permission. I’m genuinely offended by your politics and formally request that you go here to read why: http://members.aol.com/ahunter3/
Ditto what Diane said re: working with the homeless. I worked in social service for 8 years, and I concur that the successes are few and far between. Tons of man-hours are spent on every case and most often the client doesn’t give a crap. There is little hope in trying to turn these people into ‘productive citizens’ because they don’t want to be productive citizens.
The State is also at fault for designing programs with no hope of success.
I had better stop now before I go off.
Don’t get me wrong–I love life. I’m just finding it harder and harder to keep myself amused.
I believe you. (Sadly). That’s why I’ve always thought that anyone who finds themselves, for whatever reason, in that situation and wants to fix the problem should be given plenty of help to insure they can do it. But for the perpetual ones, who’ve been given chance after chance and blown it, or have shown no interest in getting or holding down a job - screw 'em. The world does not owe them jack. I don’t know how well one can tell the difference between the two types early on, but in some cases it seems quite clear.
This problem is an infinite money sink for exactly the reason you mention. No matter how much you spend on it, it won’t go away - in fact, it’ll probably get worse. All that happens is that people (for valid, humanitarian reasons) want to divert more and more money from other, useful programs into income redistribution.
I also believe the system is currently set up to make sure people can’t sink. If people were permitted to sink (after being handed a life vest and chosing to throw it away), perhaps they’d be more interested in learning to swim.
