The Hell-Raiser's Blog: Reducing Homelessness

By Bit Boy (Flickr: The Elephant in the Room)
 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0
 via Wikimedia Commons

The Themes For Today's Post:

People-Who-Live-In-Glass-Houses ... Penny-Wise-And-Pound-Foolish ... Can't-See-the-Forest-for-the-Trees ... Blaming-the-Victim, and  The-Elephant-in-the-Room

A Proposal to Eliminate Proposals to Eliminate 

Funding for Nonprofit Homeless Services

Some folks in Seattle think that local homelessness is getting worse and that service providers are inefficient and should lose their funding. 

Addressing homelessness with funding cuts to, and demands of greater accountability from, "inefficient" nonprofits is like a case worker telling an under-nourished person on SNAP/food stamps that she is not spending her per-meal allotment of $1.33 efficiently, so to eliminate waste and abuse, no more SNAP.

A partial list of why this proposal would be a great example of what not to do in a Logic 101 text:

1. Maybe the great majority of any identified nonprofit inefficiencies are the result of TOO LITTLE FUNDING and more cuts will only mean MORE INEFFICIENCY. (Having worked in the nonprofit sector for 25 years, I can tell you, this is the case.)

2. Demanding more accountability via increased record-keeping will likely mean less staff time for service provision, with no guarantee of a change in the types or quality of services provided. Why do I say this? Because as a fundraiser, I would estimate that the percentage of funders who actually fund the very data collection and record-keeping that they demand is 0.0000001 (maybe a slight exaggeration, but only slight). The result is less staff-time to help homeless folks.

(Instead: How about MORE money to provide the training and capacity-building that most nonprofits cannot otherwise afford? Why not hire enough (more) nonprofit staff to do the work that needs to be done? Why not pay nonprofit staff a LIVING WAGE? (You wanna talk inefficiency? Let's talk about nonprofit turnover and the associated costs. Let's talk about the number of nonprofit workers who can't afford to have kids or retire or save for college, and leave the profession before age 40, taking their experience with them.)

3. Cut funding for homeless service providers, and homeless service providers, who are probably already understaffed, will cut staff. 

4. Whatever reduction in homelessness results from making nonprofits more efficient is probably 1% of the reduction that could be achieved by reducing income inequality.

What about demanding some accountability from the we-will-create-jobs-in-exchange-for-tax-breaks corporations? What about more, or more aggressive, policies that promote affordable housing? Or policies that promote a living wage?

But cutting funding to service providers for the homeless? Talk about an inefficient use of time, energy, and resources ... yeesh.

A Call to Action to Call President Obama and Congress

After reading reports that on Wednesday, President Obama plans to propose cuts to Social Security and means-testing for Medicare, I have come up with a proposal of my own: I suggest an update to Emma Lazarus' poem, The New Colossus -- the poem that made the Statue of Liberty "a symbol of hope to the outcasts and downtrodden of the world." Lady Liberty's poetic message no longer describes the U.S.  

Here's the part of Lazarus' poem that needs to be updated:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I don't pretend to have Lazarus' skill with words, but I have penned something that I think better represents the present, sad state of affairs in this country:

Give me your unhired, your poor,

Your co-eds in classes to get a degree,

The union members whose jobs went offshore,

Send me the sick, old, and homeless-to-be:

They're good for Wendys, Walmarts, prisons, and war.

Please tell President Obama and your members of Congress how you feel about cutting Social Security benefits. Need more info? Strengthen Social Security is a coalition of senior, advocacy, and other groups that is a good resource for information about what's at stake and how to get involved in opposing cuts.

Time to Pour Cold Water on the Chained CPI!

Last week, the Senate voted to block use of the chained CPI, a cost-of-living adjustment that would result in reductions in Social Security benefits. The rest of us can - and should - keep the no-cuts momentum going in D.C. by weighing in with our elected leaders. 

Why keep the momentum going? Because despite the facts that: 1) 32 percent of Americans are poor or low-income, and 2) a clear majority of Americans oppose Social Security cuts, it is not at all clear that Social Security will emerge unscathed (sans cuts) from this year’s budget process. Consider that:

• The Senate vote was a nonbinding voice vote.
• Though over 100 House Dems sent a letter (12/12) to President Obama, saying  they were “deeply   opposed” to the chained CPI to cut benefits, what they meant   by “deeply opposed” is not clear: When Representatives Alan Grayson (D-FLA)  and Mark Takano (D-CA) circulated a letter (2/13) stating, “we will vote against any …cut to … Social Security benefits – including … cutting the cost of living adjustments,” only 31 House Democrats signed it.
• As for Republicans in the House and Senate, we know what they want – to shrink Social Security so much that they can drown it in the bath tub.  
• Mainstream press coverage of this issue appears to be sloppy, biased (pro-cuts), or both. (Example #1:  Repeated references to Social Security as an entitlement program that is driving up the national debt, when in reality it is an earned benefits program prohibited by law from contributing one cent to the debt.  Example 2: The scant mainstream media coverage of Friday’s vote.)
• President Obama has repeatedly signaled his willingness to make cuts to Social Security.

What is clear: We can expect more warnings from politicians, pundits, and the mainstream press about looming, unspecified threats to our children if we don't make immediate cuts. More claims that it's up to the adults in the room to come to the table… that the only adults in the room are those willing to put all options on the table … that only the adults will make cuts in the spirit of bipartisan shared sacrifice … and that they’ll do it now because we can't keep kicking the can down the road.

I don’t agree with these claims (being “adult” means we must compromise Social Security benefits). We who oppose cuts must be the adults in the room – yes. But we must come to the table, take the water pitcher, turn it upside down, and pour cold water all over every budget option that imposes cuts to benefits. By "pouring cold water," I mean telling both Congress and President Obama in no uncertain terms what Social Security means to us/the people we serve. We can do this by meeting with our representatives and senators, attending town hall events (and speaking up), making phone calls, sending emails, writing letters to the editor, organizing demonstrations - take your pick. But we must act now - and urge others in our communities to follow suit. 

Ghandi was right: Now, more than ever, we must be the adults we wish to see in the room. 

Personal Responsibility Deniers, Moochers, Takers, Self-Proclaimed Victims, Welfare Queens, Government Dependents, Public Teat Suckers, and Gift-Seekers, Unite!

This is a call to action. We have a problem - the fake “Social-Security-Is-Going-Bankrupt!” problem.

Politicians, pundits, and policy wonks falsely claim that Social Security is going-bankrupt-now! and adding-to-the- deficit!, and destroying the Futures-of-Our-Children-and-Our-Children’s-Children! They argue for “reforming” Social Security, by which they mean cutting benefits. Other politicians, et al. dignify this malarkey by treating it as if it merited consideration. Some examples:

• This exchange, during the 10/11/12 vice presidential candidates’ debate, between moderator and ABC journalist Martha Raddatz, and vice presidential candidate Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI):

Martha Raddatz: Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. Will benefits for Americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive, Mr. Ryan?

Representative Ryan: Absolutely. Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts.

• The Simpson-Bowles Commission’s deficit reduction “plan,” which proposed a combination of cuts that would reduce the average annual Social Security benefit for middle-income workers by up to 35 percent. (Note: There is no official Commission plan because only 11 of the Commission’s 18 members voted to endorse their own work, three short of the 14 needed to send it to Congress.)

Social Security recipients are not cheating future hard-working, tax-paying, by-the-rules-playing citizens, as some people seem to suggest. Rather, cuts proponents are proposing to cheat future benefit recipients by raiding Social Security. People who say otherwise are being poopy-heads, and here is why:

1. Social Security doesn't contribute one penny to the deficit, and is prohibited from doing so by law.
2. Social Security benefits 56 million  Americans, and keeps 20 million out of poverty.
3. Social Security's surplus in 2011 was $2.7 trillion; it can operate at current benefit levels for at least 20 years - without any "reforms.

These are indisputable facts.

If ever there was a time to expand Social Security’s capacity to protect the “average citizen and his family against … poverty-ridden old age,” as FDR said, it is now.  Yet we are told that Social Security is in crisis and needs immediate cuts so that it will “be there for people who need it”   several generations from now, that we must remember The Children, etc.

Translation: If I (a Baby Boomer under 55) insist on receiving the Social Security benefits I have earned and will need to avoid poverty (no cuts), a Terrible Burden could be visited on The Children 40-some years from now.  Motivated by guilt and a sense of urgency, I am supposed to happily forfeit my benefits - right now. (Unless I act now, I might realize something: If reformed Social Security benefits no longer cover my rent and food, it is my children who will feel obligated to pay for these essentials – while also paying for their kids’ child care and saving for college tuition.)   

Remember the 2011 protests that shifted the national policy focus from the deficit to the destitute and near-destitute? It’s time to protest again. We need to call out politicians who continue to insist that during the worst recession in 50 years, they need seniors’ stay-out-of-poverty money to pay down a debt largely due to tax cuts for the rich. We need to call out people who pit our needs against our children's.

Picture this: Throughout December, voters show up at their U.S. senators’ and representatives’ offices, daily, to demand Social Security benefit increases.... Senators and representatives are deluged with emails, letters, and phone calls, all advocating this same position.... At town hall meetings and other public events, they are urged to increase benefits. When they go downtown, they are greeted by demonstrators demanding more benefits. Each time they check the news, there’s another letter to the editor, op-ed, or interview, about increasing Social Security benefit levels.

If they don’t hear us, we turn up the volume. Local senior groups*, Occupy chapters, and others who care about seniors join forces and:

• Occupy local Social Security offices.
• Go holiday “caroling,” through local shopping districts and past our electeds’ offices. (“Wet socks dangling over a camp fire….Jack Frost’s gonna claim more toes….Just lost my crash pad, damn that barbed wire! Wish I could find a place to doze…”).
• Hold bake sales outside of lawmakers’ offices, at hearings on Social Security reform, or  in downtown shopping districts. A big bake sale sign could read something like, “Janesville Senior Center Bake Sale: Helping 56 million seniors live with dignity –  one cookie at a time.” Proceeds would fund senior services or community organizing campaigns to expand Social Security benefits.
• Stitch and bitch: Senior center members could add a decorative patch to the scarves and hats they knit and sell at holiday bazaars, outdoor Sunday markets, craft fairs and bake sales, as well as online.  On each patch - a circle with a slash through it, superimposed on a drawing of a grandma under a bus.

There are many ways to express your opinions. Choose what works for your community. But do it now.

*Yes, today’s seniors might be spared at least some of the cuts, but they are worried about their children, who won’t be spared.

By the way, the picture above is of a grandma, thrown under the bus.

Cut This!

Here we go again. Our elected leaders are pushing yet more cuts: “unavoidable” cuts, cuts-that-no-one-wants, cuts-that-hurt-me-more-than-they-hurt-you, haircuts (as in “we all gotta take one”), and on and on. And, some of them say, if we don’t make the necessary cuts, our unborn children’s children will most certainly face a DEFICIT which will most certainly be a BURDEN SO HUGE that it will most certainly CRUSH THEM.

Here’s my translation:

These things are too expensive:

·         Clean air/water

·         Safe food/drugs/other

·         Literacy

·         Old people

·         Children

·         Sick people

·         Poor people

·         Etc.

Our nation has only so much money, and we can spend it on only our highest priorities:

·         War

·         The market’s mental health (The market doesn’t like “uncertainty.”)

·         Reduced tax rates for corporations and rich people

Really?


The United States now spends more money on war/defense than the rest of the world –combined.  But we are to believe that this nation is broke?
    

     We are supposed to believe that the federal budget proposal that passed the House  is “serious” when it: 

            1) would eliminate and/or reduce SNAP (food stamp) aid to millions,  

                and 

            2) is authored by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) of $350/bottle wine fame? 
       

        In a nation where 

• the 25 most successful hedge fund managers  earned an average annual salary of $883,000,000 in 2010 (about $440,000 per hour) ...
• members of the 1% buy 30,000 (or more) square foot homes, $800,000 watches, $18,000 purses, and $2500 pumps ...

... we are supposed to believe that there is no more money for shelters for the homeless or food for the hungry? 


Moreover, we are supposed to believe that we have to make cuts to programs like these - that we are spending too much money on the homeless and the hungry?

I have developed my own list of recommended cuts. I call it

“Cut:

• Tax breaks for billionaires, 
• Healthcare for hypocrites*, 
• Education aid for economic elites**, 

• Corporate welfare, 
• Retirement benefits for Congress***, 
• Aid to needy CEOs, and 
• Pentagon boondoggles” 

“Cut THE CRAP,” for short.

You might find the name of my proposal to be a bit crass. But there is no denying that “crap” is an apt description of the cuts proposed by Paul Ryan. If you agree, please make your perspective heard. Here are some ways to do it:

• Ask candidates for public office in your community if they will pledge to fight cuts to Social Security, Medicare,  Medicaid, and other assistance programs.     
• Send a letter to, visit, or call your elected representatives to ask if they will pledge to fight cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other assistance programs.     
• Send a letter to the editor. You know what to say. Or ask.
• Ask candidates who support cuts if they will pledge to renounce their pensions, perks, health care packages, etc. 
• Volunteer for candidates who pledge to oppose cuts, especially to support  Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
• Vote for these candidates.
• Know someone like minded who needs transportation in order to register to vote and/or getting to the polls? Offer to give her/him a ride.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Cut health insurance offered by the government to government officals opposed to health insurance offered by the government.

** Cut taxpayer-funded vouchers for children from wealthy families to attend private schools; those taxpayer dollars could fund public schools.

***Cut pensions for lawmakers who advocate cuts to pensions for public workers.

The Let-Them-Eat-Cake Budget

What is with all of the sturm and drang over Paul Ryan’s budget? It offers serious proposals that deserve serious consideration. For example: 

• Infrastructure: Yes, I know some people are worried about our “crumbling” infrastructure. These people will cite a list of specific roads and bridges, etc. that need immediate repair. But Ryan is right to suggest that the federal government need not spend money on repairs. It can simply maintain a website that lists roads and bridges to avoid, along with a statement that by using said roads and bridges, travelers waive all rights to hold government entities accountable for any bodily harm incurred during usage.

• EPA: So what if it’s gutted? So what if oil refineries pollute the air? I have two words for you: Face masks. You’re worried about water? While I have not verified this, I just bet those face masks would make fine water filters.

• Health Care: You want a health care program? Okay. I have a program many times cheaper than the current health care plan. I call mine the “An Apple A Day …” Plan. My plan calls for government bureaucrats whose jobs have been eliminated to be rehired (sans benefits and unions); they hand out apples to card-carrying, hard-working, tax-paying U.S. citizens. One per person per day. Unless you’re a job creator.

• Medicare: No, you won’t continue to have access to the level of care you would otherwise enjoy. Instead, you will get a voucher with which to purchase up to $8000 of insurance. No, there is no reason to expect that any private insurer would offer you a policy. And no, the $8000 probably would not cover even the premiums, let alone your corn pads. But maybe the powers-that-be could be persuaded to substitute an $8000 travel voucher for the insurance voucher - then you could buy a plane ticket to a country* where you can get health care.** Bon Voyage! 

*You weren’t thinking of driving or boarding a train, were you?

**It would also buy approximately 22 bottles of the $350-per-bottle of wine that Paul Ryan was recently caught sipping.