11 Temmuz 2012 Çarşamba
10 Temmuz 2012 Salı
9 Temmuz 2012 Pazartesi
PBS NewsHour: Wealth, Poverty and Politics Today
To contact us Click HERE
On the basis that a well-informed citizenry is critical to choosing the right leader, I submit the following material addressing "safety nets" for the poor to you for your analysis. Unfortunately, I long ago recognized that whatever your analysis might determine, it will most likely make absolutely no difference.
There's very little action beyond occasional lip service those of us on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder can count on from any of the current crop of "leaders" governing our country. It has become increasingly clear to me that this is because we don't really operate under a democracy, or a republic, although many continue trying to tell us we do. We are governed by a bastardized version of both, a "representative democracy," which ultimately ends up allowing those with deep pockets to receive substantially more "representative" involvement than those of us with shallow or empty pockets receive.
American politics, like just about all politics, has always been controlled by those with the means to control it. "Control" here is really just a codeword for M O N E Y.
Granted, it wasn't always as terrible as it is now, but the pendulum of big crumbs versus small crumbs given to those on the bottom has definitely swung back and forth over the last couple hundred years here in the US.
But I can also clearly remember when I felt like I had a shot at entering "middle class." This "feeling" remained with me all the way up until around the mid 80s, when something odd happened. From that period forward, my weekly wage didn't increase much at all, but prices for things did like crazy. From candy bars to chicken legs, dishsoap to gasoline, everything I needed to survive began an inexorable price climb that continues to this day. Unfortunately, wages that used to climb in some relation to the cost of living ceased their increase.
Meanwhile, it was somewhere in the early 90s that I recall strange things beginning to occur with our public institutions. Schools began telling us how hard it was for them to keep textbooks in the classroom. Libraries began closing or dramatically curtailing their operating hours. Police, fire and emergency services began to tell us they were laying people off, or couldn't afford new equipment to operate effectively.
Roads, bridges and transportation in general began falling into real disrepair right about the same time that gas prices began going through the roof.
Jobs were disappearing everywhere. Entire cities were on the verge of collapse. Those who could move did, leaving those who couldn't to fend for themselves while cash-starved municipalities struggled even more as they lost the biggest contributors to their tax base.
Conversely, jails and prisons were enjoying a boom-time, remaining packed to overflowing, while local and state governments spent lavishly on building more to address demand.
What the hell happened to my country I wondered as I struggled to hold down two minimum wage jobs I had to beg to obtain?
I began paying more attention to politics, naively thinking that by understanding the issues and voting for the right person to represent me, I could help change the disastrous course our big ol ship was on. Didn't take me long to realize I wasn't alone and that there were hundreds of thousands, then millions, who, like me, was wondering what in the hell happened to make life so damned miserable for so many of us?
Then I began to realize that most of the "candidates" available to us weren't "for" us at all. Even those who claimed to be representing us were so far away from what we thought was needed that those of us who did vote began to hold our noses when we stepped into the booth, figuring that we'd choose the lesser of two evils, since things were so bad that maybe by choosing the less less-palatable candidate, things would at least stabilize and we wouldn't continue a further slide into the poverty abyss.
As things got worse in our communities, people became very scared. Fear has a strange way of manifesting itself, and folks began looking for scapegoats, to "God," to emotional ties to potential candidates who, although not always aligned with their best economic interests, helped vindicate or support a particular point of view, such as the "right to life," or allowing gays to marry. By using these "hot-button" issues to garner support, views and individuals previously considered "extreme" became more "mainstream," at least to some.
Then some crazy bastards flew a couple of planes into one of the "symbols of America" and full-on insanity within the national political theater became the norm.
Things once thought never possible here in the "land of the free" became law as people willingly gave up the very rights our Founding Fathers tried desperately to clad in stone in the Constitution.
Folks with frankly ridiculous assumptions about how to run a country squandered the wealth of our nation, led us into wars with countries that had never done anything more than curse at us from their canoes on the shores of a distant ocean or sea, and ended up pissing off more than a billion people, all who now look at our shores with missiles and hate in their eyes.
Our "leaders" capitalized upon this hate by fearmongering to us on a daily basis, causing many to quiver in their shoes as they gave up more and more of the Rights our Founding Fathers fought so damned hard to provide them. Those "Leaders" funneled more than half of our collective wealth into a military machine, arguing vociferously that it "protects" us, provides magical jobs, and now that military has become our nation's largest employer. Coincidentally, it also provides the most benefits to the people of our nation. Think this through and you'll understand the point I'm trying to make, if you don't already.
Did the 80's really initiate these things, or were they in place and fomenting long before, with the 80s just being the catalyst needed to set it all into motion?
Thom Hartmann offers some insight:
This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, it is a Republican and Democrat conspiracy to remain in power by appeasing those who can ensure the status quo.
Since most of us will never reach the level of wealth needed to insert ourselves into the power structure, the pathetic fists pounding on a closed iron door to the Halls of Power are barely noticeable inside those halls, and would fall on deaf ears anyway, since we have nothing to offer but cannon fodder for the next war.
Doesn't mean I'll give up the fight, but I long ago long lost my Locke-inspired belief in the "Moral Code of Government," exchanging it for the much more appropriate Hobbesian "Materialist View of Human Nature" and his understanding of "fear as the determining factor in human life."
For my critics and the cynics of this particular piece, I applaud you for keeping the dream of a moral and compassionate government and society alive. I would greatly enjoy being proven wrong, and I'm thrilled you continue to have faith in the human race. I just wish there were more of you.
Lots more.
Watch How Strong Is Safety Net for Poor Americans? on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.Audio of debate
TranscriptJEFFREY BROWN: Now, wealth, poverty and politics today.
For several weeks, much of the Republican presidential campaign seemed to focus on the subject of wealth, specifically that of Mitt Romney and the taxes he did or didn't pay.
MITT ROMNEY (R): Will there will discussion? Sure. Will it be an article? Yeah. But is it entirely legal and fair? Absolutely. I'm proud of the fact that I pay a lot of taxes.
JEFFREY BROWN: The wealth focus came amid a national conversation prompted in part by the Occupy protest movement, which put a spotlight on economic inequality.
President Obama took up the theme in his State of the Union address last week.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
JEFFREY BROWN: Now the dialogue may be shifting from wealth to poverty.
Romney drew fire yesterday after he said this on CNN, explaining his focus on the middle class.
MITT ROMNEY: I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.
JEFFREY BROWN: In Las Vegas today, Romney's Republican rival, Newt Gingrich, accused him of dismissing the poor.
NEWT GINGRICH (R): I really believe that we should care about the very poor, unlike Gov. Romney.
(LAUGHTER)
NEWT GINGRICH: But I believe we should care differently than Barack Obama. Both Gov. Romney and Barack Obama seem to believe that a -- quote -- "safety net" is all the poor need. I don't believe that. What the poor need a trampoline, so they can spring up and quit being poor.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
JEFFREY BROWN: And the president worked the issue into remarks at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.
BARACK OBAMA: It's also about the biblical call to care for the least of these, for the poor, for those at the margins of our society, to answer the responsibility we're given in Proverbs to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
JEFFREY BROWN: The issue may resonate this election year more than most, as poverty numbers rise and millions of Americans remain unemployed.
And we explore some of these issues now with Angela Glover Blackwell. She's the founder and CEO of the advocacy group PolicyLink. Lawrence Mead is professor of politics and public policy at New York University. And Barbara Perry, a senior fellow in the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center.
Angela Glover Blackwell, I will start with you. A general question first: How serious a problem is poverty in America today?
ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL, PolicyLink: Poverty is a huge problem. It's a problem for the people who are in it and it's a problem for the nation -- 15 percent of Americans live below the poverty level, highest number since 1993.
And 44 percent of those live below half of the poverty level. That means for a woman with two children, that's less than $9,000 a year. On top of that, we have millions and millions of Americans, 127 million, who in three months of no job would live in poverty.
Poverty is a huge issue, it's getting worse, and it should be very troubling to all of the American people, not just those who are living in poverty.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, well, Lawrence Mead, you were an opponent of the welfare reform in the '90s. You don't hear much about poverty in our politics today. How would you frame the problem?
LAWRENCE MEAD, New York University: Well, poverty is a different problem from those that have gotten most of the attention. It's not primarily due to unemployment or inequality.
Those are concerns that affect the bulk of the population and they affect some poor people. Poverty has grown largely due to economic conditions, but it doesn't follow that most of poverty is due to the economy. That's really not true. Most poor adults are outside the economy.
They're simply detached. And they don't say that the fact that they're not working is due to the fact that they can't find a job. That's seldom the case. It's usually other factors in their private lives that make it difficult for them to work.
Now, I don't give up. I think we should take steps to make sure that they, in fact, go to work. And that's what we did in welfare reform. I think we should also do it for non-working men of low income. Most of them are not employed either, and we need to do something about that. And certainly the economy makes it harder to do, but it's still quite possible.
Jobs are usually available. The main problem is to mobilize people to actually get up and work regularly.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, so, Barbara Perry, there was that remark from Gov. Romney yesterday starting to bubble up into the political conversation. As someone who studies presidential history here, what strikes you about this moment as we think about poverty and politics?
BARBARA PERRY, University of Virginia: Well, I think it's a moment that in many ways repeats a cycle in our country's history that goes back to our very founding.
And that is that the founding fathers were aware of economic inequalities even at that time. And it has followed through and has often been kicked off, these various cycles, by traumatic upheavals. And certainly 2008 was a traumatic upheaval in our economy. And so I think the disparities that people see -- and I think the hearts are in the right place of both Lawrence and Angela -- they may have different approaches to the problem or see different political issues related to it.
But I think that it's certainly bubbled up into the conversation of our politics because of the upheaval of 2008, for sure.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Angela Glover Blackwell, I want to ask you, because you started by giving some very large numbers of people.
Do most Americans -- when a Mitt Romney or a politician talks about the great middle, because that's what we hear most often -- do most Americans feel themselves to be in the middle and not in poverty?
ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: Most Americans like to think of themselves as being in the middle.
Many Americans understand that they're in a very vulnerable place right now. The notion that people in poverty really have a safety net is just wrong. And it's smacks of a "let them eat cake" posture, not really understanding the depth of the problem, not understanding how to get out of it, but not understanding the impacts on society.
The people who are being left behind now, white people in rural communities, Latinos, African-Americans, will make up the future population. Almost half of all children now are children of color -- they will be half by the end of this decade.
With high levels of poverty -- 39 percent of all black children are poor -- with high levels of poverty, the future is not right for America if we don't deal with poverty and the people who are being left behind. The American people think of themselves as being middle class, but they know they're vulnerable and they certainly don't want to fall into a needy position, and have the leaders not understand that the safety net is not broad enough, it's not strong enough, and it's not thoughtful enough about how to get people get out of poverty and stay out of poverty.
JEFFREY BROWN: Lawrence Mead, what do you think of this question, of the great middle, of the question of the safety net, of how people, how American voters see themselves and therefore how our politicians talk about these things?
LAWRENCE MEAD: Most Americans don't think they're poor, and they don't think they're at risk of poverty, but they are concerned about the poor.
We do have the safety net. There are about 46 million people on food stamps currently. That's a huge number. We're doing a lot to help people who are low-income. And we should do that. That isn't where we're failing, really. It has to do more with making sure that employment levels rise.
We have to make sure poor adults are regularly involved in the economy. We did that substantially for welfare mothers in the '90s. We need to do it again today, particularly for low-working men. That's the main thing we need to add to the safety net that we have.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Barbara Perry, what do we know about what resonates with voters as we watch politicians talking about these issues, a lot of concern, a lot of resentfulness about -- towards the wealthy, or still aspirational about getting out of poverty and out of middle class?
BARBARA PERRY: Well, Jeffrey, I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head. And that is indeed people want to have aspirations.
And that, I think, has been the beauty of our system and of our capitalistic system in this country for all of its history. And that is the great American dream, that each generation thought it could do better than the last.
And I know -- here I sit at the University of Virginia , where I did a Ph.D., and my parents, because they came up in the Depression, the Great Depression, could not get beyond high school. And their parents in turn, who were very working-class, couldn't get beyond sixth- or seventh-grade education.
But I think that what we see now and what will resonate with people is that politicians talk to them about the fear of losing those aspirations of the great American dream and the possibility that it's turning into the great American nightmare.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Angela Glover Blackwell, do you think the subject is getting enough attention? What encourages or discourages you about what you're hearing now?
ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: I am so encouraged that we are talking about inequality in America. I'm pleased that we're now talking about poverty.
We need to stay on this topic, because this mobility that we have been so proud of in this nation is in jeopardy -- 47 percent of daughters who are poor will remain there, 35 percent of sons -- 45 percent of African-American children born into the middle class will end up poor, 16 percent of white children.
We need to restore this notion that you can move up, that children can do better than their parents. We need to stay on topic. This is a serious problem. We need to come to some conclusions about how to move forward.
JEFFREY BROWN: Are you hopeful about hearing those conclusions among -- from the . . .
ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: I am.
JEFFREY BROWN: Yes?
ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: I am hopeful. I'm hopeful because the conversation has opened up.
When the president did the State of the Union and he emphasized early education, K-12, strong community colleges, infrastructure investments, those were the right things to talk about. We need to really make sure that everything we do, including infrastructure investments, really can benefit those who are poor, they can get the jobs, their communities can be improved.
I am hopeful because the conversation we need to have is finally on the table.
JEFFREY BROWN: Lawrence Mead, are you hopeful about what we may hear on this, and is it getting -- is the subject getting as much attention as it deserves?
LAWRENCE MEAD: I think it needs even more attention. I agree that improving opportunity is absolutely crucial. We need to make sure that people who are less well-off now will be able to improve their lot.
I see that as a joint enterprise. Government has to do things to help people, but people also have to help themselves. And that is what we should focus on. We need to have a situation where there's a safety net, but also people go to work and they stay working, and they do other steps to advance themselves.
The ability to do that is still there in America, and we need to make sure that that's the case in the future.
JEFFREY BROWN: Barbara Perry, I just think back to some periods in our history where poverty was an intensely felt part of the political conversation. It seemed to fall off the map for a while there. What do you think about now and going forward?
BARBARA PERRY: Well, I think it'd be great if, as we say, we carry on this conversation and we continue to talk about some of these disparities and we have people from all sides of the spectrum, experts in the field giving us different possibilities of how to address it.
But I think that I maintain that positive outlook that we can do this, but I do believe that the situation since 2008 has caused people to feel personally that they're in a downward spiral, and we don't want a situation where we have the different political parties just coming at each other and feeling -- making people feel like the parties are spiraling downward as well on this particular topic, and not offering constructive possibilities.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, we'll leave it there.
Barbara Perry, Lawrence Mead, Angela Glover Blackwell, thank you, all three, very much.
ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: Thank you.
BARBARA PERRY: Thank you.
LAWRENCE MEAD: Thank you.
There's very little action beyond occasional lip service those of us on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder can count on from any of the current crop of "leaders" governing our country. It has become increasingly clear to me that this is because we don't really operate under a democracy, or a republic, although many continue trying to tell us we do. We are governed by a bastardized version of both, a "representative democracy," which ultimately ends up allowing those with deep pockets to receive substantially more "representative" involvement than those of us with shallow or empty pockets receive.
American politics, like just about all politics, has always been controlled by those with the means to control it. "Control" here is really just a codeword for M O N E Y.
Granted, it wasn't always as terrible as it is now, but the pendulum of big crumbs versus small crumbs given to those on the bottom has definitely swung back and forth over the last couple hundred years here in the US.
But I can also clearly remember when I felt like I had a shot at entering "middle class." This "feeling" remained with me all the way up until around the mid 80s, when something odd happened. From that period forward, my weekly wage didn't increase much at all, but prices for things did like crazy. From candy bars to chicken legs, dishsoap to gasoline, everything I needed to survive began an inexorable price climb that continues to this day. Unfortunately, wages that used to climb in some relation to the cost of living ceased their increase.
Meanwhile, it was somewhere in the early 90s that I recall strange things beginning to occur with our public institutions. Schools began telling us how hard it was for them to keep textbooks in the classroom. Libraries began closing or dramatically curtailing their operating hours. Police, fire and emergency services began to tell us they were laying people off, or couldn't afford new equipment to operate effectively.
Roads, bridges and transportation in general began falling into real disrepair right about the same time that gas prices began going through the roof.
Jobs were disappearing everywhere. Entire cities were on the verge of collapse. Those who could move did, leaving those who couldn't to fend for themselves while cash-starved municipalities struggled even more as they lost the biggest contributors to their tax base.
Conversely, jails and prisons were enjoying a boom-time, remaining packed to overflowing, while local and state governments spent lavishly on building more to address demand.
What the hell happened to my country I wondered as I struggled to hold down two minimum wage jobs I had to beg to obtain?
I began paying more attention to politics, naively thinking that by understanding the issues and voting for the right person to represent me, I could help change the disastrous course our big ol ship was on. Didn't take me long to realize I wasn't alone and that there were hundreds of thousands, then millions, who, like me, was wondering what in the hell happened to make life so damned miserable for so many of us?
Then I began to realize that most of the "candidates" available to us weren't "for" us at all. Even those who claimed to be representing us were so far away from what we thought was needed that those of us who did vote began to hold our noses when we stepped into the booth, figuring that we'd choose the lesser of two evils, since things were so bad that maybe by choosing the less less-palatable candidate, things would at least stabilize and we wouldn't continue a further slide into the poverty abyss.
As things got worse in our communities, people became very scared. Fear has a strange way of manifesting itself, and folks began looking for scapegoats, to "God," to emotional ties to potential candidates who, although not always aligned with their best economic interests, helped vindicate or support a particular point of view, such as the "right to life," or allowing gays to marry. By using these "hot-button" issues to garner support, views and individuals previously considered "extreme" became more "mainstream," at least to some.
Then some crazy bastards flew a couple of planes into one of the "symbols of America" and full-on insanity within the national political theater became the norm.
Things once thought never possible here in the "land of the free" became law as people willingly gave up the very rights our Founding Fathers tried desperately to clad in stone in the Constitution.
Folks with frankly ridiculous assumptions about how to run a country squandered the wealth of our nation, led us into wars with countries that had never done anything more than curse at us from their canoes on the shores of a distant ocean or sea, and ended up pissing off more than a billion people, all who now look at our shores with missiles and hate in their eyes.
Our "leaders" capitalized upon this hate by fearmongering to us on a daily basis, causing many to quiver in their shoes as they gave up more and more of the Rights our Founding Fathers fought so damned hard to provide them. Those "Leaders" funneled more than half of our collective wealth into a military machine, arguing vociferously that it "protects" us, provides magical jobs, and now that military has become our nation's largest employer. Coincidentally, it also provides the most benefits to the people of our nation. Think this through and you'll understand the point I'm trying to make, if you don't already.
Did the 80's really initiate these things, or were they in place and fomenting long before, with the 80s just being the catalyst needed to set it all into motion?
Thom Hartmann offers some insight:
"David Stockman bragged, back during the Reagan administration, that the goal of Republicans was to rack up such a huge federal debt that Democrats would never be able to push forward the "socialist" programs that Americans want, like stable Social Security and single-payer national health care. He called it "starving the beast." Grover Norquist suggested it would force government to become so small it could be'"drowned in a bathtub,' leaving the corporations in charge. George W. Bush actually, finally, made it happen."I don't mean to single Reagan out as the initiator of the "Evil Empire" he so eloquently argued he was fighting, Yes, the finger is pointed at a Republican as the tipping point, but that Republican could never have succeeded without direct complicity from the "opposing" Party standing at their side.
This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, it is a Republican and Democrat conspiracy to remain in power by appeasing those who can ensure the status quo.
Since most of us will never reach the level of wealth needed to insert ourselves into the power structure, the pathetic fists pounding on a closed iron door to the Halls of Power are barely noticeable inside those halls, and would fall on deaf ears anyway, since we have nothing to offer but cannon fodder for the next war.
Doesn't mean I'll give up the fight, but I long ago long lost my Locke-inspired belief in the "Moral Code of Government," exchanging it for the much more appropriate Hobbesian "Materialist View of Human Nature" and his understanding of "fear as the determining factor in human life."
For my critics and the cynics of this particular piece, I applaud you for keeping the dream of a moral and compassionate government and society alive. I would greatly enjoy being proven wrong, and I'm thrilled you continue to have faith in the human race. I just wish there were more of you.
Lots more.
Watch How Strong Is Safety Net for Poor Americans? on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.Audio of debate
TranscriptJEFFREY BROWN: Now, wealth, poverty and politics today.
For several weeks, much of the Republican presidential campaign seemed to focus on the subject of wealth, specifically that of Mitt Romney and the taxes he did or didn't pay.
MITT ROMNEY (R): Will there will discussion? Sure. Will it be an article? Yeah. But is it entirely legal and fair? Absolutely. I'm proud of the fact that I pay a lot of taxes.
JEFFREY BROWN: The wealth focus came amid a national conversation prompted in part by the Occupy protest movement, which put a spotlight on economic inequality.
President Obama took up the theme in his State of the Union address last week.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
JEFFREY BROWN: Now the dialogue may be shifting from wealth to poverty.
Romney drew fire yesterday after he said this on CNN, explaining his focus on the middle class.
MITT ROMNEY: I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.
JEFFREY BROWN: In Las Vegas today, Romney's Republican rival, Newt Gingrich, accused him of dismissing the poor.
NEWT GINGRICH (R): I really believe that we should care about the very poor, unlike Gov. Romney.
(LAUGHTER)
NEWT GINGRICH: But I believe we should care differently than Barack Obama. Both Gov. Romney and Barack Obama seem to believe that a -- quote -- "safety net" is all the poor need. I don't believe that. What the poor need a trampoline, so they can spring up and quit being poor.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
JEFFREY BROWN: And the president worked the issue into remarks at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.
BARACK OBAMA: It's also about the biblical call to care for the least of these, for the poor, for those at the margins of our society, to answer the responsibility we're given in Proverbs to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
JEFFREY BROWN: The issue may resonate this election year more than most, as poverty numbers rise and millions of Americans remain unemployed.
And we explore some of these issues now with Angela Glover Blackwell. She's the founder and CEO of the advocacy group PolicyLink. Lawrence Mead is professor of politics and public policy at New York University. And Barbara Perry, a senior fellow in the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center.
Angela Glover Blackwell, I will start with you. A general question first: How serious a problem is poverty in America today?
ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL, PolicyLink: Poverty is a huge problem. It's a problem for the people who are in it and it's a problem for the nation -- 15 percent of Americans live below the poverty level, highest number since 1993.
And 44 percent of those live below half of the poverty level. That means for a woman with two children, that's less than $9,000 a year. On top of that, we have millions and millions of Americans, 127 million, who in three months of no job would live in poverty.
Poverty is a huge issue, it's getting worse, and it should be very troubling to all of the American people, not just those who are living in poverty.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, well, Lawrence Mead, you were an opponent of the welfare reform in the '90s. You don't hear much about poverty in our politics today. How would you frame the problem?
LAWRENCE MEAD, New York University: Well, poverty is a different problem from those that have gotten most of the attention. It's not primarily due to unemployment or inequality.
Those are concerns that affect the bulk of the population and they affect some poor people. Poverty has grown largely due to economic conditions, but it doesn't follow that most of poverty is due to the economy. That's really not true. Most poor adults are outside the economy.
They're simply detached. And they don't say that the fact that they're not working is due to the fact that they can't find a job. That's seldom the case. It's usually other factors in their private lives that make it difficult for them to work.
Now, I don't give up. I think we should take steps to make sure that they, in fact, go to work. And that's what we did in welfare reform. I think we should also do it for non-working men of low income. Most of them are not employed either, and we need to do something about that. And certainly the economy makes it harder to do, but it's still quite possible.
Jobs are usually available. The main problem is to mobilize people to actually get up and work regularly.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, so, Barbara Perry, there was that remark from Gov. Romney yesterday starting to bubble up into the political conversation. As someone who studies presidential history here, what strikes you about this moment as we think about poverty and politics?
BARBARA PERRY, University of Virginia: Well, I think it's a moment that in many ways repeats a cycle in our country's history that goes back to our very founding.
And that is that the founding fathers were aware of economic inequalities even at that time. And it has followed through and has often been kicked off, these various cycles, by traumatic upheavals. And certainly 2008 was a traumatic upheaval in our economy. And so I think the disparities that people see -- and I think the hearts are in the right place of both Lawrence and Angela -- they may have different approaches to the problem or see different political issues related to it.
But I think that it's certainly bubbled up into the conversation of our politics because of the upheaval of 2008, for sure.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Angela Glover Blackwell, I want to ask you, because you started by giving some very large numbers of people.
Do most Americans -- when a Mitt Romney or a politician talks about the great middle, because that's what we hear most often -- do most Americans feel themselves to be in the middle and not in poverty?
ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: Most Americans like to think of themselves as being in the middle.
Many Americans understand that they're in a very vulnerable place right now. The notion that people in poverty really have a safety net is just wrong. And it's smacks of a "let them eat cake" posture, not really understanding the depth of the problem, not understanding how to get out of it, but not understanding the impacts on society.
The people who are being left behind now, white people in rural communities, Latinos, African-Americans, will make up the future population. Almost half of all children now are children of color -- they will be half by the end of this decade.
With high levels of poverty -- 39 percent of all black children are poor -- with high levels of poverty, the future is not right for America if we don't deal with poverty and the people who are being left behind. The American people think of themselves as being middle class, but they know they're vulnerable and they certainly don't want to fall into a needy position, and have the leaders not understand that the safety net is not broad enough, it's not strong enough, and it's not thoughtful enough about how to get people get out of poverty and stay out of poverty.
JEFFREY BROWN: Lawrence Mead, what do you think of this question, of the great middle, of the question of the safety net, of how people, how American voters see themselves and therefore how our politicians talk about these things?
LAWRENCE MEAD: Most Americans don't think they're poor, and they don't think they're at risk of poverty, but they are concerned about the poor.
We do have the safety net. There are about 46 million people on food stamps currently. That's a huge number. We're doing a lot to help people who are low-income. And we should do that. That isn't where we're failing, really. It has to do more with making sure that employment levels rise.
We have to make sure poor adults are regularly involved in the economy. We did that substantially for welfare mothers in the '90s. We need to do it again today, particularly for low-working men. That's the main thing we need to add to the safety net that we have.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Barbara Perry, what do we know about what resonates with voters as we watch politicians talking about these issues, a lot of concern, a lot of resentfulness about -- towards the wealthy, or still aspirational about getting out of poverty and out of middle class?
BARBARA PERRY: Well, Jeffrey, I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head. And that is indeed people want to have aspirations.
And that, I think, has been the beauty of our system and of our capitalistic system in this country for all of its history. And that is the great American dream, that each generation thought it could do better than the last.
And I know -- here I sit at the University of Virginia , where I did a Ph.D., and my parents, because they came up in the Depression, the Great Depression, could not get beyond high school. And their parents in turn, who were very working-class, couldn't get beyond sixth- or seventh-grade education.
But I think that what we see now and what will resonate with people is that politicians talk to them about the fear of losing those aspirations of the great American dream and the possibility that it's turning into the great American nightmare.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Angela Glover Blackwell, do you think the subject is getting enough attention? What encourages or discourages you about what you're hearing now?
ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: I am so encouraged that we are talking about inequality in America. I'm pleased that we're now talking about poverty.
We need to stay on this topic, because this mobility that we have been so proud of in this nation is in jeopardy -- 47 percent of daughters who are poor will remain there, 35 percent of sons -- 45 percent of African-American children born into the middle class will end up poor, 16 percent of white children.
We need to restore this notion that you can move up, that children can do better than their parents. We need to stay on topic. This is a serious problem. We need to come to some conclusions about how to move forward.
JEFFREY BROWN: Are you hopeful about hearing those conclusions among -- from the . . .
ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: I am.
JEFFREY BROWN: Yes?
ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: I am hopeful. I'm hopeful because the conversation has opened up.
When the president did the State of the Union and he emphasized early education, K-12, strong community colleges, infrastructure investments, those were the right things to talk about. We need to really make sure that everything we do, including infrastructure investments, really can benefit those who are poor, they can get the jobs, their communities can be improved.
I am hopeful because the conversation we need to have is finally on the table.
JEFFREY BROWN: Lawrence Mead, are you hopeful about what we may hear on this, and is it getting -- is the subject getting as much attention as it deserves?
LAWRENCE MEAD: I think it needs even more attention. I agree that improving opportunity is absolutely crucial. We need to make sure that people who are less well-off now will be able to improve their lot.
I see that as a joint enterprise. Government has to do things to help people, but people also have to help themselves. And that is what we should focus on. We need to have a situation where there's a safety net, but also people go to work and they stay working, and they do other steps to advance themselves.
The ability to do that is still there in America, and we need to make sure that that's the case in the future.
JEFFREY BROWN: Barbara Perry, I just think back to some periods in our history where poverty was an intensely felt part of the political conversation. It seemed to fall off the map for a while there. What do you think about now and going forward?
BARBARA PERRY: Well, I think it'd be great if, as we say, we carry on this conversation and we continue to talk about some of these disparities and we have people from all sides of the spectrum, experts in the field giving us different possibilities of how to address it.
But I think that I maintain that positive outlook that we can do this, but I do believe that the situation since 2008 has caused people to feel personally that they're in a downward spiral, and we don't want a situation where we have the different political parties just coming at each other and feeling -- making people feel like the parties are spiraling downward as well on this particular topic, and not offering constructive possibilities.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, we'll leave it there.
Barbara Perry, Lawrence Mead, Angela Glover Blackwell, thank you, all three, very much.
ANGELA GLOVER BLACKWELL: Thank you.
BARBARA PERRY: Thank you.
LAWRENCE MEAD: Thank you.
Nashville & Homeless Encampments: Here We Go Again
To contact us Click HERE
Most folks around these parts will probably remember the protracted battle to first save the largest homeless encampment in Nashville, then to extend the closing deadline to try and provide services and resources to the 100+ residents living there, some for a decade or more.
Mother Nature did what police, city officials and the business community could not; the historic flood that occurred in May, 2010 put that camp some 20 feet under water, pushing out residents, who entered Red Cross emergency shelters as they waited for the flood waters to recede.
Those who could got out of Nashville, those who couldn't moved to where they believed they had the freedom from persecution and hassle by law enforcement.
Unfortunately, it didn't last, and now they are forced to move again. With each move, they are pushed further outward, into suburbs, away from services, and deeper into isolation.
There will be more to this story. Stay tuned...
Mother Nature did what police, city officials and the business community could not; the historic flood that occurred in May, 2010 put that camp some 20 feet under water, pushing out residents, who entered Red Cross emergency shelters as they waited for the flood waters to recede.
Those who could got out of Nashville, those who couldn't moved to where they believed they had the freedom from persecution and hassle by law enforcement.
Unfortunately, it didn't last, and now they are forced to move again. With each move, they are pushed further outward, into suburbs, away from services, and deeper into isolation.
There will be more to this story. Stay tuned...
Open Table Gets The Job Done
To contact us Click HERE
As Nashville continues its struggle against lack of affordable housing, outreach specialists and critical services needed to serve the most vulnerable and marginalized in our community, some agencies and advocates stand out from the rest in their tireless effort to bring whatever they can to the table (no pun intended) in order to make life a little easier for those who must endure it homeless.
As I wandered the most recent camp facing closure last week and spoke with residents/friends I've known for many years now, a couple of things were immediately apparent. First, while there were a couple of folks down at the camp trying to provide some outreach, the lack of coordinated, skilled and full-time outreach specialists trained in MI and specializing in person-centered, trauma informed outreach with a housing focus means people will continue to suffer needlessly.
Second, the issue of housing, or more specifically the lack thereof, especially for people who present challenges to traditional units, continues as a glaring reality for us as a city. Most of the folks at this particular camp are transplants from the original Tent City, which closed on May 5th, 2010 when flood waters along the Cumberland River did what city officials could not; empty the camp completely and wipe out all standing structures. As the waters receded, police began enforcing the "no trespassing" order with a vengeance, arresting and jailing anyone who dared set up a camp site in the area.
The bad news, as far as I'm concerned, is that these two things - lack of outreach and resources - were also the same problems facing folks in the original camp back in the pre-flood days of 2009 and 2010. Unfortunately for those who remain on the streets, neither has improved and frankly both have worsened considerably since 2010.
I can unequivocally state here that if it had not been for Ingrid over at Open Table and Denis from Operation Stand Down, camp residents would have been in far worse shape than they were, since without them, no one would have even known the camp had been ordered to close.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing about this whole issue is that even with the confirmation that this camp was closing, the response I perceived from those who are charged with finding solutions to these kinds of issues was a hohum sense of resignation that the folks at the camp were "un-housable" and therefore did not warrant the expenditure of any resources whatsoever.
I don't mean to disparage anyone working in any one of these agencies because I know that for the most part, provider hearts are definitely in the work they're doing. But I know the sense of frustration many of them feel; not only are so many of the "available" programs out of reach for many of the area homeless because of the eligibility requirements, we've also been pushing this damned "affordable housing" boulder up a mountain that would embarrass Everest with our noses and we've been crushed so many times by the backward slide that many have simply given up pushing.
As governmental budgets shrivel and cuts to funding for agencies continue, we are forced to operate in crisis mode ourselves, reacting to the very worst of the cases instead of trying to proactively end homelessness before folks have so many challenges stacked up on their backs that it's neigh impossible to help them.
It's a never-ending battle that saps the strength, the commitment and the dedication of damned near everyone involved.
That Open Table continues to fight back tirelessly should stand as a testament to the rest of us that we cannot let the disinterest, the lack of funding, the ignorance. and the myriad other issues facing us destroy our own commitment to the cause as we work to end homelessness.
My deep appreciation goes out to Ingrid and the folks at Open Table for staying on course, no matter what everyone else may or may not be doing.
My colleague and current director of the SOAR program at Park Center Corey Gephart and I will be presenting a short piece on the need for outreach/services during our upcoming Nashville Metropolitan Homelessness Commission meeting (3/2 at 9a), I'm hoping to highlight the challenges facing us as service providers and then promote the return to the primary focus of the Commission: making affordable housing a reality for the people of Nashville. There's no doubt whatsoever that we are in desperate need of it and it cannot come too soon.
As Nashville continues its struggle against lack of affordable housing, outreach specialists and critical services needed to serve the most vulnerable and marginalized in our community, some agencies and advocates stand out from the rest in their tireless effort to bring whatever they can to the table (no pun intended) in order to make life a little easier for those who must endure it homeless.As I wandered the most recent camp facing closure last week and spoke with residents/friends I've known for many years now, a couple of things were immediately apparent. First, while there were a couple of folks down at the camp trying to provide some outreach, the lack of coordinated, skilled and full-time outreach specialists trained in MI and specializing in person-centered, trauma informed outreach with a housing focus means people will continue to suffer needlessly.
Second, the issue of housing, or more specifically the lack thereof, especially for people who present challenges to traditional units, continues as a glaring reality for us as a city. Most of the folks at this particular camp are transplants from the original Tent City, which closed on May 5th, 2010 when flood waters along the Cumberland River did what city officials could not; empty the camp completely and wipe out all standing structures. As the waters receded, police began enforcing the "no trespassing" order with a vengeance, arresting and jailing anyone who dared set up a camp site in the area.The bad news, as far as I'm concerned, is that these two things - lack of outreach and resources - were also the same problems facing folks in the original camp back in the pre-flood days of 2009 and 2010. Unfortunately for those who remain on the streets, neither has improved and frankly both have worsened considerably since 2010.
I can unequivocally state here that if it had not been for Ingrid over at Open Table and Denis from Operation Stand Down, camp residents would have been in far worse shape than they were, since without them, no one would have even known the camp had been ordered to close.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing about this whole issue is that even with the confirmation that this camp was closing, the response I perceived from those who are charged with finding solutions to these kinds of issues was a hohum sense of resignation that the folks at the camp were "un-housable" and therefore did not warrant the expenditure of any resources whatsoever.
I don't mean to disparage anyone working in any one of these agencies because I know that for the most part, provider hearts are definitely in the work they're doing. But I know the sense of frustration many of them feel; not only are so many of the "available" programs out of reach for many of the area homeless because of the eligibility requirements, we've also been pushing this damned "affordable housing" boulder up a mountain that would embarrass Everest with our noses and we've been crushed so many times by the backward slide that many have simply given up pushing.
As governmental budgets shrivel and cuts to funding for agencies continue, we are forced to operate in crisis mode ourselves, reacting to the very worst of the cases instead of trying to proactively end homelessness before folks have so many challenges stacked up on their backs that it's neigh impossible to help them.
It's a never-ending battle that saps the strength, the commitment and the dedication of damned near everyone involved.
That Open Table continues to fight back tirelessly should stand as a testament to the rest of us that we cannot let the disinterest, the lack of funding, the ignorance. and the myriad other issues facing us destroy our own commitment to the cause as we work to end homelessness.
My deep appreciation goes out to Ingrid and the folks at Open Table for staying on course, no matter what everyone else may or may not be doing.
My colleague and current director of the SOAR program at Park Center Corey Gephart and I will be presenting a short piece on the need for outreach/services during our upcoming Nashville Metropolitan Homelessness Commission meeting (3/2 at 9a), I'm hoping to highlight the challenges facing us as service providers and then promote the return to the primary focus of the Commission: making affordable housing a reality for the people of Nashville. There's no doubt whatsoever that we are in desperate need of it and it cannot come too soon.
Nashville Metro Homelessness Commission Has A Big Responsibility In Front Of Them
To contact us Click HERE
March's bimonthly Nashville Metro Commission meeting had, I believe, every Commissioner at the table, which is often a rarity for a couple of reasons, the least of which is the fact that just about all of us have full time + jobs and volunteer our uncompensated time on the Commission. This of course isn't a reason to treat the position with less commitment than you would a "paid" position, but the Commission does then become the secondary responsibility in one's life when that primary responsibility (spelled J O B) demands your presence.
So to have a full table is not only a great thing, it's not often a common thing and we needed a full slate of Commissioners as we discussed the critical need for, and large absence of, street outreach specialists here in the Nashville area.
For this meeting, I led a panel discussion on outreach, with strong support from Park Center's Corey Gephart, who oversee's the famous (made so by Big Willy Connelly) and wildly successful SOAR program and its street outreach component. Also a panelist was Carolyn Grossley (Cooper), who spent more than a decade on the street performing outreach while employed with the Mental Health Cooperative, one of Nashville's largest service providers. Carolyn now works for the Key Alliance as the Housing Coordinator, and toils (I chose that word carefully) building relationships with local area landlords in order to procure additional housing resources for the city's most vulnerable.
We were slated for 30 minutes but the discussion was so robust and spirited among Commissioners that it went for over an hour; time well spent as far as I'm concerned, since for many on the Commission, the understanding of "street outreach" was vague, at best.
I won't bore you all with the minutae of the discussion but instead can summarize several key points that I think the Commissioners are currently grappling with:
It should be noted loudly and clearly that the Commission really has no authority to enact legislation and/or policy. We are more a fact-finding body that researches the issues at hand, makes recommendations to the Mayor, provides an opportunity for public comment and input, and attempts to both raise awareness around the complexities of homelessness while working with others to coordinate service delivery around the city.
We are uncompensated volunteers for these efforts and each of us has our own personal and/or professional reasons for serving the community and the homeless population. We come to the position passionate about ending homelessness and each of us also know that we operate in an environment traditionally either ignorant of, and/or unconcerned with the issue of homelessness.
We know too that there are some who harbor hostility to those experiencing homelessness ("if they'd just find a job, they wouldn't be homeless," "They all oughta just pull themselves up by the bootstraps," "they want to be homeless," "they deserve to be homeless," "don't put that shelter/soup kitchen/housing complex/service agency in my back yard," etc, etc, etc) and we are occasionally castigated - and at times vehemently disliked - by a fractional cadre of individuals within the homeless community.
Most folks with any sense don't typically stick around long when doing work few care about or approve of and those suffering from the impact the work addresses think they can do better. Nowhere is this more true than in working to end homelessness. But as each person arrives at the table with his/her own personal reasons for serving, the commitment to serve stands as a testament to the passion each of us brings to the role of Commissioner, as it is often a thankless job filled with a variety of folks who work to find fault with whatever you may be proposing, suggesting, or hoping to implement/create. Because of this, I often say during training's that "if a person has been in this field longer than six months and is still employed and passionate about the work, they ain't here for the money."
One of the more interesting and insightful aspects of serving on the commission is listening to the public comments towards the end of the meetings. These sessions provide an opportunity for citizens of the community to present their own views, ideas, comments, and complaints about a host of issues related to homelessness and life in the city while living homeless.
Over the years that I have been attending Commission meetings, I have heard from a wide variety of individuals on an even wider variety of topics. But I would say that the vast majority of individuals who comment are people experiencing homelessness or who are formerly homeless. Many of these individuals come angry, frustrated, and disheartened by their perceived lack of progress the Commission is making in executing the ten year plan for the city.
I feel their pain, and have since I began attending the meetings back in 2008. I also know that for many who comment, the three-minute time limit is not enough for them to share what they want to say, and typically what ends up happening is that...well, here, let me share a post I placed here back in November as an explanation. I think understanding why some of the folks feel discounted and/or ignored by some members of the Commission will be enhanced as a result of a quick perusal of this post.
I can tell you that whatever some folks may feel, their comments are valued and respected. Most of us realize that folks living day to day on the streets have some immediate need that, when goes unmet, causes tremendous frustration, hopelessness and anger. For a very long time, folks battling against the scourge of homelessness have been ignored, marginalized....invisible. That someone might actually be listening to them as they speak provides perhaps the greatest opportunity to be heard they've had in a very very long time, and there is a lot they would like to say.
Trying to summarize a longterm traumatic event like homelessness is akin to asking a war veteran to explain his/her experience of an extended tour of duty in a combat zone in three minutes or less. It's almost insulting. And usually, by the time an individual actually makes it to a Commission meeting, the blood is near boiling, since just their trip to a meeting is far different, and much more challenging, than those of us on the other side of the table.
I think Commissioners on the whole understand all this, and don't take personally some of the personal attacks that occur to them by frustrated individuals during those public comments. They take in stride calls for the resignation of some members, the disbanding of the Commission, the occasional scorn and derision that comes in some of those comments, because they know that folks are suffering, and lashing out is a symptom of the condition, rather than a personal attack on any one of the members. They also know that it is because of the Commission that folks even have a place to come complain, for without the Commission, the most marginalized and vulnerable among us would fade back into total obscurity, and would have no public voice, anywhere.
Returning to the question "where do we go from here," I believe the answer hinges on the next meeting, which will hopefully have some recommendations around a potential city-wide outreach training being considered here in Nashville, as well as some additional discussion around the lack of housing and ways in which we as Commissioners are able to positively influence a major increase in availability and funding to help those on the street access it.
This is our overarching goal and I think at times we get sidetracked by acute and transitory issues, arising often from public comments that alert us all to egregious conduct and/or conditions facing those experiencing homelessness. Nothing wrong with wanting to help mitigate some of the more pressing problems facing folks, but if we want to end homelessness instead of managing it, we've simply got to provide housing.
Perhaps our litmus test for new business for the Commission should be whether, at the conclusion of the intervention/assistance/effort, we have created new housing opportunities for folks. If the answer is no, then maybe we ought to try and pass the particular issue on to another group, organization or committee that can provide assistance so that we are able to return to our primary focus, housing. It is my humble opinion that this should always be our bottom line and we should always be laser-focused on providing safe, affordable housing - lots of it.
Hope you'll join us at the next Commission meeting, occurring the first Friday in May, and beginning at 9am at the Howard School in downtown Nashville. We need your input, your support, and your physical presence to help impress upon those still on the streets that we as a community care about everyone in our community.
 |
| Many Commission members (all of whom are uncompensated) often play integral roles in the annual Project Homeless Connect event, in addition to their regular duties on the Commission and their primary jobs |
So to have a full table is not only a great thing, it's not often a common thing and we needed a full slate of Commissioners as we discussed the critical need for, and large absence of, street outreach specialists here in the Nashville area.
For this meeting, I led a panel discussion on outreach, with strong support from Park Center's Corey Gephart, who oversee's the famous (made so by Big Willy Connelly) and wildly successful SOAR program and its street outreach component. Also a panelist was Carolyn Grossley (Cooper), who spent more than a decade on the street performing outreach while employed with the Mental Health Cooperative, one of Nashville's largest service providers. Carolyn now works for the Key Alliance as the Housing Coordinator, and toils (I chose that word carefully) building relationships with local area landlords in order to procure additional housing resources for the city's most vulnerable.
We were slated for 30 minutes but the discussion was so robust and spirited among Commissioners that it went for over an hour; time well spent as far as I'm concerned, since for many on the Commission, the understanding of "street outreach" was vague, at best.
I won't bore you all with the minutae of the discussion but instead can summarize several key points that I think the Commissioners are currently grappling with:
- Defining what "outreach" actually is and who would appropriately be designated as "outreach workers" within our community
- Ensuring that street outreach specialists are properly trained and compensated to ensure longevity in the position and long-term success with the population of homeless individuals
- Recognizing the value of a trained street outreach specialist (moving just one chronically homeless individual from the street into housing, pays for the outreach in terms of salary/benefits for one year, since a chronically homeless individual on average costs the city $40K annually. If that individual is also connected with an income source such as SSDI, the city recognizes an increase in spending and tax revenue once the individual is approved and begins receiving benefits)
- Coordinating the move from the street into housing
- Understanding the importance of "wrap-around" services once an individual enters housing
- Exploring sustainability and funding options for both outreach and affordable housing units AND the longterm need of a housing fund to assist with 0-income candidates for housing
It should be noted loudly and clearly that the Commission really has no authority to enact legislation and/or policy. We are more a fact-finding body that researches the issues at hand, makes recommendations to the Mayor, provides an opportunity for public comment and input, and attempts to both raise awareness around the complexities of homelessness while working with others to coordinate service delivery around the city.
We are uncompensated volunteers for these efforts and each of us has our own personal and/or professional reasons for serving the community and the homeless population. We come to the position passionate about ending homelessness and each of us also know that we operate in an environment traditionally either ignorant of, and/or unconcerned with the issue of homelessness.
We know too that there are some who harbor hostility to those experiencing homelessness ("if they'd just find a job, they wouldn't be homeless," "They all oughta just pull themselves up by the bootstraps," "they want to be homeless," "they deserve to be homeless," "don't put that shelter/soup kitchen/housing complex/service agency in my back yard," etc, etc, etc) and we are occasionally castigated - and at times vehemently disliked - by a fractional cadre of individuals within the homeless community.
Most folks with any sense don't typically stick around long when doing work few care about or approve of and those suffering from the impact the work addresses think they can do better. Nowhere is this more true than in working to end homelessness. But as each person arrives at the table with his/her own personal reasons for serving, the commitment to serve stands as a testament to the passion each of us brings to the role of Commissioner, as it is often a thankless job filled with a variety of folks who work to find fault with whatever you may be proposing, suggesting, or hoping to implement/create. Because of this, I often say during training's that "if a person has been in this field longer than six months and is still employed and passionate about the work, they ain't here for the money."
One of the more interesting and insightful aspects of serving on the commission is listening to the public comments towards the end of the meetings. These sessions provide an opportunity for citizens of the community to present their own views, ideas, comments, and complaints about a host of issues related to homelessness and life in the city while living homeless.
Over the years that I have been attending Commission meetings, I have heard from a wide variety of individuals on an even wider variety of topics. But I would say that the vast majority of individuals who comment are people experiencing homelessness or who are formerly homeless. Many of these individuals come angry, frustrated, and disheartened by their perceived lack of progress the Commission is making in executing the ten year plan for the city.
I feel their pain, and have since I began attending the meetings back in 2008. I also know that for many who comment, the three-minute time limit is not enough for them to share what they want to say, and typically what ends up happening is that...well, here, let me share a post I placed here back in November as an explanation. I think understanding why some of the folks feel discounted and/or ignored by some members of the Commission will be enhanced as a result of a quick perusal of this post.
I can tell you that whatever some folks may feel, their comments are valued and respected. Most of us realize that folks living day to day on the streets have some immediate need that, when goes unmet, causes tremendous frustration, hopelessness and anger. For a very long time, folks battling against the scourge of homelessness have been ignored, marginalized....invisible. That someone might actually be listening to them as they speak provides perhaps the greatest opportunity to be heard they've had in a very very long time, and there is a lot they would like to say.
Trying to summarize a longterm traumatic event like homelessness is akin to asking a war veteran to explain his/her experience of an extended tour of duty in a combat zone in three minutes or less. It's almost insulting. And usually, by the time an individual actually makes it to a Commission meeting, the blood is near boiling, since just their trip to a meeting is far different, and much more challenging, than those of us on the other side of the table.
I think Commissioners on the whole understand all this, and don't take personally some of the personal attacks that occur to them by frustrated individuals during those public comments. They take in stride calls for the resignation of some members, the disbanding of the Commission, the occasional scorn and derision that comes in some of those comments, because they know that folks are suffering, and lashing out is a symptom of the condition, rather than a personal attack on any one of the members. They also know that it is because of the Commission that folks even have a place to come complain, for without the Commission, the most marginalized and vulnerable among us would fade back into total obscurity, and would have no public voice, anywhere.
Returning to the question "where do we go from here," I believe the answer hinges on the next meeting, which will hopefully have some recommendations around a potential city-wide outreach training being considered here in Nashville, as well as some additional discussion around the lack of housing and ways in which we as Commissioners are able to positively influence a major increase in availability and funding to help those on the street access it.
This is our overarching goal and I think at times we get sidetracked by acute and transitory issues, arising often from public comments that alert us all to egregious conduct and/or conditions facing those experiencing homelessness. Nothing wrong with wanting to help mitigate some of the more pressing problems facing folks, but if we want to end homelessness instead of managing it, we've simply got to provide housing.
Perhaps our litmus test for new business for the Commission should be whether, at the conclusion of the intervention/assistance/effort, we have created new housing opportunities for folks. If the answer is no, then maybe we ought to try and pass the particular issue on to another group, organization or committee that can provide assistance so that we are able to return to our primary focus, housing. It is my humble opinion that this should always be our bottom line and we should always be laser-focused on providing safe, affordable housing - lots of it.
Hope you'll join us at the next Commission meeting, occurring the first Friday in May, and beginning at 9am at the Howard School in downtown Nashville. We need your input, your support, and your physical presence to help impress upon those still on the streets that we as a community care about everyone in our community.
The Finest Advocacy Guide For Affordable Housing I've Ever Seen
To contact us Click HERE
Colleague and friend Mark Allison has some long-term experience ensuring that Housing is considered a basic human right. Along with his job at the Center for Social Innovation, Mark is also a Board member for the National Low Income Housing Coalition and has been working with the group for a very long time. The Coalition recently published the 2012 Advocates Guide to Housing and Community Development Policy, and I have to say, they hit a Grand Slam with this and it couldn't have been more timely, or more needed.
The document is about 255 pages long and if you have any interest at all in helping to end homelessness in our country but don't have a clue where to start, what the priorities are, what is available, or all of the above, this guide should be required reading.
I've copied just the 2012 Policy Agenda for the Coalition below to give you a taste of what they're up to, and I encourage you to download the pdf, print it out, and read it cover to cover. Then get busy, because there is a lot of work to be done.
There work is so important, and this guide is so valuable, that I immediately sent them a contribution. If you can, please send the Coalition a donation of $10 or more dollars. They need it, they earn it every day, and the work they are doing is critical to ending homelessness in our country.
National Low Income Housing Coalition
2012 Policy Agenda
NLIHC supports all policy initiatives that advance our mission and our goals.
Mission:
NLIHC is dedicated solely to achieving socially just public policy that assures people with the lowest incomes in the
United States have affordable and decent homes.
Our three goals are:
• To preserve existing federally assisted homes and housing resources.
• To expand the supply of low income housing.
• To establish housing stability as the primary purpose of federal low income housing policy.
In 2012, NLIHC will focus its resources proactively on the policy objectives listed below, while monitoring the policy environment and responding to emerging issues as needed.
National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF)
• Obtain funding for the NHTF of at least $5 billion a year, with a goal of $30 billion a year for 10 years.
• Advance Ellison bill on Mortgage Interest Deduction reform and funding for the NHTF.
• Monitor and influence federal housing finance reform legislation to protect the statutory authority for the NHTF and to emsure that dedicated funding for NHTF is in final bill.
• Develop and advance legislation to direct 20% of profits of Federal Home Loan Banks into NHTF after they have reached required levels of reserves.
• Develop and advance legislation to 1) move statutory authority for NHTF to more compatible and less vulnerable section of the federal code, and 2) ensure rents for NHTF units are affordable for all extremely low income (ELI) households.
• Advance S. 489 and H.R. 1477 to fund NHTF through proceeds of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
• Advocate for publication of NHTF rule in timely manner.
Balanced Housing Policy
• Advance Ellison bill on Mortgage Interest Deduction reform to create mortgage interest credit and funding for NHTF.
• Monitor and influence federal housing finance reform legislation to ensure balanced attention to both rental housing and mortgaged housing.
Housing Choice Vouchers
• Advance Section 8 Savings Act without Moving to Work (MTW), time limits, or minimum rent increases.
• Develop and advance legislation to incentivize state and regional voucher administration.
• Advocate for increase in incremental vouchers and ensure full funding for all current vouchers in FY13 HUD budget.
• Monitor Small Area Fair Market Rent demonstration.
Preservation of Public and Assisted Housing
• Advocate for full funding of project-based Section 8 contracts and the operating accounts. Advocate for sufficient funding to meet annual capital costs of public housing and increased funding to address the public housing capital needs backlog.
• Advocate for enactment of Rental Assistance Demonstration program.
• Oppose expansion of MTW in absence of resident protections.
• Advance legislation to require unique identifier for each and every federally assisted housing property, and to establish a national preservation inventory.
• Advocate for tools and resources for residents and advocates to work on preservation of public and assisted housing.
• Support administrative reforms to protect existing units.
Federal Budget
• Advocate for the highest possible FY13 appropriations for HUD and USDA Rural Housing, while ensuring sufficient funding to preserve all existing low income housing resources and prevent loss of units affordable to or rental assistance
for ELI households.
• Advocate for sufficient funding for U.S. Census.
• Explore moving all rent assistance programs to mandatory side of budget.
• Oppose deficit reduction plans that do not include increased revenues.
• Oppose cuts to discretionary and mandatory programs that will cause harm to low income people.
• Oppose across-the-board cuts.
• Advance Ellison bill on Mortgage Interest Deduction reform and funding for the NHTF.
Foreclosure Intervention
• Advance legislation to make permanent the Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act (PTFA).
• Monitor and influence implementation of PTFA by federal agencies and GSEs.
Disaster Housing
• Advance S. 1630, the Disaster Recovery Act of 2011 (Stafford Act reform).
Planning for Just Communities
• Monitor and influence improvements to the Consolidated Plan process.
• Monitor and influence the regulations to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.
• Develop and advance legislation to incentivize state and regional voucher administration.
Housing Plus Services
• Monitor and influence implementation of HEARTH Act.
• Monitor and influence implementation of Section 811 and Section 202 legislation.
• Advance H.R. 3254, Affordable Communities Employment Act of 2011 (Section 3).
30% for the 30% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
• Develop and advance legislation to require that a minimum 30% of units subsidized by LIHTC be affordable to and occupied by ELI households.
• Protect LIHTC in context of any tax reform and deficit reduction legislation.
HOME
• Develop and advance legislation to require that a minimum of 30% of units subsidized by HOME funds be affordable to and occupied by ELI households.
• Advocate for HOME funding of at least $2 billion.
Federal Home Loan Banks
• Develop and advance legislation to require that a minimum of 30% of units subsidized by Affordable Housing Program funds be affordable to and occupied by ELI households.
The time is NOW to let your voice be heard. Read the Advocate's Guide, support the Coalition, and get busy. Thousands of people are depending on it.
The document is about 255 pages long and if you have any interest at all in helping to end homelessness in our country but don't have a clue where to start, what the priorities are, what is available, or all of the above, this guide should be required reading.
I've copied just the 2012 Policy Agenda for the Coalition below to give you a taste of what they're up to, and I encourage you to download the pdf, print it out, and read it cover to cover. Then get busy, because there is a lot of work to be done.
There work is so important, and this guide is so valuable, that I immediately sent them a contribution. If you can, please send the Coalition a donation of $10 or more dollars. They need it, they earn it every day, and the work they are doing is critical to ending homelessness in our country.
National Low Income Housing Coalition
2012 Policy Agenda
NLIHC supports all policy initiatives that advance our mission and our goals.
Mission:
NLIHC is dedicated solely to achieving socially just public policy that assures people with the lowest incomes in the
United States have affordable and decent homes.
Our three goals are:
• To preserve existing federally assisted homes and housing resources.
• To expand the supply of low income housing.
• To establish housing stability as the primary purpose of federal low income housing policy.
In 2012, NLIHC will focus its resources proactively on the policy objectives listed below, while monitoring the policy environment and responding to emerging issues as needed.
National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF)
• Obtain funding for the NHTF of at least $5 billion a year, with a goal of $30 billion a year for 10 years.
• Advance Ellison bill on Mortgage Interest Deduction reform and funding for the NHTF.
• Monitor and influence federal housing finance reform legislation to protect the statutory authority for the NHTF and to emsure that dedicated funding for NHTF is in final bill.
• Develop and advance legislation to direct 20% of profits of Federal Home Loan Banks into NHTF after they have reached required levels of reserves.
• Develop and advance legislation to 1) move statutory authority for NHTF to more compatible and less vulnerable section of the federal code, and 2) ensure rents for NHTF units are affordable for all extremely low income (ELI) households.
• Advance S. 489 and H.R. 1477 to fund NHTF through proceeds of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
• Advocate for publication of NHTF rule in timely manner.
Balanced Housing Policy
• Advance Ellison bill on Mortgage Interest Deduction reform to create mortgage interest credit and funding for NHTF.
• Monitor and influence federal housing finance reform legislation to ensure balanced attention to both rental housing and mortgaged housing.
Housing Choice Vouchers
• Advance Section 8 Savings Act without Moving to Work (MTW), time limits, or minimum rent increases.
• Develop and advance legislation to incentivize state and regional voucher administration.
• Advocate for increase in incremental vouchers and ensure full funding for all current vouchers in FY13 HUD budget.
• Monitor Small Area Fair Market Rent demonstration.
Preservation of Public and Assisted Housing
• Advocate for full funding of project-based Section 8 contracts and the operating accounts. Advocate for sufficient funding to meet annual capital costs of public housing and increased funding to address the public housing capital needs backlog.
• Advocate for enactment of Rental Assistance Demonstration program.
• Oppose expansion of MTW in absence of resident protections.
• Advance legislation to require unique identifier for each and every federally assisted housing property, and to establish a national preservation inventory.
• Advocate for tools and resources for residents and advocates to work on preservation of public and assisted housing.
• Support administrative reforms to protect existing units.
Federal Budget
• Advocate for the highest possible FY13 appropriations for HUD and USDA Rural Housing, while ensuring sufficient funding to preserve all existing low income housing resources and prevent loss of units affordable to or rental assistance
for ELI households.
• Advocate for sufficient funding for U.S. Census.
• Explore moving all rent assistance programs to mandatory side of budget.
• Oppose deficit reduction plans that do not include increased revenues.
• Oppose cuts to discretionary and mandatory programs that will cause harm to low income people.
• Oppose across-the-board cuts.
• Advance Ellison bill on Mortgage Interest Deduction reform and funding for the NHTF.
Foreclosure Intervention
• Advance legislation to make permanent the Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act (PTFA).
• Monitor and influence implementation of PTFA by federal agencies and GSEs.
Disaster Housing
• Advance S. 1630, the Disaster Recovery Act of 2011 (Stafford Act reform).
Planning for Just Communities
• Monitor and influence improvements to the Consolidated Plan process.
• Monitor and influence the regulations to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.
• Develop and advance legislation to incentivize state and regional voucher administration.
Housing Plus Services
• Monitor and influence implementation of HEARTH Act.
• Monitor and influence implementation of Section 811 and Section 202 legislation.
• Advance H.R. 3254, Affordable Communities Employment Act of 2011 (Section 3).
30% for the 30% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
• Develop and advance legislation to require that a minimum 30% of units subsidized by LIHTC be affordable to and occupied by ELI households.
• Protect LIHTC in context of any tax reform and deficit reduction legislation.
HOME
• Develop and advance legislation to require that a minimum of 30% of units subsidized by HOME funds be affordable to and occupied by ELI households.
• Advocate for HOME funding of at least $2 billion.
Federal Home Loan Banks
• Develop and advance legislation to require that a minimum of 30% of units subsidized by Affordable Housing Program funds be affordable to and occupied by ELI households.
The time is NOW to let your voice be heard. Read the Advocate's Guide, support the Coalition, and get busy. Thousands of people are depending on it.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)