I’m really interested in the public perception of what constitutes a ‘welfare’ provision and what doesn’t. Do you folk think that government fiscal policy (ie, tax exemptions and the like) are ‘welfare’ or is it only when the govt. outlays direct expenditures (like pensions and housing) that it can be called that.
In other words, what’s a definition of ‘welfare’ especially in regard to housing?
Here in Aus we have a ‘First Homeowners Scheme’ whereby a grant ($7000) is given to help with the purchase of one’s first home. It is not means tested, but only applies to owner-occupied premises. It is a ‘handout’ in the truest sense of the word, but not many who recieve it would consider themselves to be ‘on welfare’. Should all those who recieve it be subject to the “One Strike” rulings (assuming we had such a law here)??
“Welfare” as I generally hear it used, refer to government programs that are means- tested , that require direct expenditure by the government and that don’t require the beneficiary to have ever paid any taxes. Your “First Homeowners” grant would probably not be considered welfare (even if we had anything remotely like it in the US), simply because it’s not means- tested. We don’t consider Social Security to be welfare, even the though lower- paid workers benefits are a higher proportion of their wages, because you must have paid social security taxes to be eligible.We don’t consider public schools and universities welfare - they’re open to everyone.If we had a government financed health-care system that covered everyone, people wouldn’t think of it as welfare.
I don’t know much about Aus, but I suspect you have a far more socialized system there than we have in the US.The idea of a $7000 housing grant in the US, (not means-tested, not only for houses in areas that need to be “revitalized”,but available o ecery first-time homebuyer) nearly made me spit out my coffee. It’s not a ridiculous idea in itself- it’s just that nothing like that would ever happen here.
Doreen
The article was about Jeb Bush, not Dubya. None of the Dubya daughters has ever been charged or convicted of the possession or use of any illegal drugs other than alcohol.
The daughter of Jeb Bush whose drug offense got dragged willy-nilly into the original article is a legal adult. Nor (as was pointed out) do any of the Bush girls live in subsidized housing with their parents. So no one-strike laws apply in either case.
Use of the White House is a requirement and benefit of being President. Think of it as part of his salary.
And am I the only one who noticed the phrase “63-year old **great-**grandmother”? How old must this woman have been when she embarked on her reproductive career? And might this possibly have made some contribution to the difficult circumstances of her life?
Regards,
Shodan
Meet one – I am a landlord, and if I have any suspicion of any kind of illegal activity happening on the premises of any of my buildings, the tenant is out as quickly as I can make that happen. I am especially hard nosed about drugs, because with drugs comes adjunct crime – violence, weapons, extortions, threats, gangs – that I don’t want near my properties and my law-abiding tenants. Fortunately, the laws in the area where I own my rental properties works in favor of landlords in situations such as these.
The option which is left open under the court’s ruling is very simple. If you are the lessee in subsidized housing, don’t have anyone living with you who has any involvement with drugs. If someone has a history, they don’t move in. If someone exhibits signs, they go live elsewhere. That doesn’t mean that you should cut them off, it doesn’t mean show no compassion, it means that you help them to get help without jeopardizing yourself. Pearlie Rucker is a senior citizen, who could’ve chosen to live in seniors-only housing on her own, and should have, which would’ve insulated her from being punished because of her daughter’s misdeeds.
It is an extraordinarily hard line to take, but the rights of the tenants of subsidized housing to live in drug-free, crime-free environments trumps the rights of those who give harbor to drug users, even when those drug-users are their own family.