Bush doesn't care about homeless people
-
Or does he?
Bush program curbs chronic homelessness
By Frank Greve
WASHINGTON - On a cold January morning in 2001, Mel Martinez, then the new secretary of Housing and Urban Development, was headed to his office in his limo when he saw some homeless people huddled on the vents of the steam tunnels that heat federal buildings.
"Somebody ought to do something for them," Martinez said he told himself. "And it dawned on me at that moment that it was me."
So began the Bush administration's radical, liberal -- and successful -- national campaign against chronic homelessness.
"Housing first," it's called. That's to distinguish it from traditional programs that require longtime street people to undergo months of treatment and counseling before they're deemed "housing ready." Instead, the Bush administration offers them rent-free apartments up front.
New residents, if they choose, can start turning their lives around with the help of substance-abuse counselors, social workers, nurse practitioners, part-time psychiatrists and employment counselors. However, residents are referred to as "consumers," and the choice is theirs.
The help is so good and the deal's so sweet that roughly four out of five chronically homeless Americans who get immediate housing stay off the streets for two years or longer, according to the program's evaluators. In Britain, which has used the approach for a decade, the so-called "rough sleeper" population declined by about two-thirds.
The "housing first" strategy gets much of the credit for a 30 percent decline in U.S. chronic homelessness from 2005 to 2007. The number fell from 176,000 to 124,000 people, according to the best available census of street people.
The chronically homeless, estimated to be between a fifth and a tenth of the total, are the hardest group of street people to help. A chronically homeless person is someone with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more or for four or more episodes in three years.
If a "housing first" strategy seems absurdly generous to them, it's proved to be crazy like a fox for many of the more than 200 U.S. cities that have adopted the approach.
The earliest adapters, including Denver, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Portland, Ore., found that the added cost of homes and support services for the chronically homeless wasn't burdensome. In fact, it was largely or entirely offset by reduced demands on shelters, emergency rooms, mental hospitals, detox centers, jails and courts.
Instead of shuttling between them, chronically homeless people "are staying housed and starting to look for employment," said Nan Roman, the president of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the leading advocates of the approach. "A lot are reconnecting with their families."
-
Great story, great find, & great results (apparently). Nice to be reassured a decision I made 4 years ago did some good.
-
Kind of goes to what I have said many times before. Bush is very very liberal in domestic policy and foreign aid. Bush and Obama have similar domestic beliefs, the major difference is that Obama does not think that the free spending W spends enough money. He wants to increase government spending by a huge amount.
Now don't get me wrong, helping people is a good thing. And what Bush did was a good thing especially when you take into account that because of other savings it pretty much paid for itself. With a proper state run program you could easily convince me of the need for mandated preventative health care (except for that slippery slop), because in the long run it would save money and lives.
But all in all I so against large federal government. If it needs to be done it should be done by the state.
-
\ said:
Kind of goes to what I have said many times before. Bush is very very liberal in domestic policy and foreign aid. Bush and Obama have similar domestic beliefs' date=' the major difference is that Obama does not think that the free spending W spends enough money. He wants to increase government spending by a huge amount.[b']That's why it's ironic to hate Bush for free spending, though we all seem to.
Imagine if he'd veto'ed any of these domestic spending plans?
He'd get flak for that too.
The party out of power hates everything the party in power does.
An unfortunate reality of human nature I guess.
WSS[/b]
-
\ said:
Kind of goes to what I have said many times before. Bush is very very liberal in domestic policy and foreign aid. Bush and Obama have similar domestic beliefs, the major difference is that Obama does not think that the free spending W spends enough money. He wants to increase government spending by a huge amount.Now don't get me wrong, helping people is a good thing. And what Bush did was a good thing especially when you take into account that because of other savings it pretty much paid for itself. With a proper state run program you could easily convince me of the need for mandated preventative health care (except for that slippery slop), because in the long run it would save money and lives.
But all in all I so against large federal government. If it needs to be done it should be done by the state.
Obama's programs actually result in a net spending decrease.
-
\ said:
\ said:
why didnt he take them to a shelter in his warm limoUnrelated (?) question:
How do you put someone on "ignore" on the new board?
You make them a "foe" I think. And Bunker ain't me mz the pussy, for real.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login