Posted on 07/12/2007 12:55:17 PM PDT by Nomorjer Kinov
Most reasonable people will concede that public housing projects failed. We’ve all seen the spotless new apartment complexes paid for by taxpayers to help the needy be transformed into filthy, crime-ridden slums.
Now, a new generation of leftists carps about “substandard housing” — as if those developments were built in the first place with cracked windows, urine in the stairwells and hypodermic needles on the playgrounds.
In fact, irresponsible residents and their guests destroy housing projects, and now — thanks to the federal government — they can do the same thing to your neighborhood.
The leading theory among those paid by the government to make excuses for the inexcusable is that public housing projects failed because they concentrated social pathology. Following that logic, the remedy is to disperse this population as widely as possible.
So the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development now provides “housing choice vouchers” so the promulgators of urban blight can export it to better neighborhoods. Voucher recipients pick out the property they want to rent, contribute 30 percent of their adjusted income toward the cost, and taxpayers make up the difference.
The only restricting factor is that the selected property must be available for what the local public housing authority defines as “fair market rent.” In the Washington metropolitan area, that is $1,134 for a one-bedroom unit, $1,286 for a two-bedroom, $1,659 for a three-bedroom and $2,171 for a four-bedroom.
HUD guidelines say that “in general, the [voucher-eligible] family’s income may not exceed 50 percent of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live.” For both Arlington County, Va., and Montgomery County, Md., the median household income is $94,500, so a family of four earning $47,250 could qualify for a voucher.
Technically, they are supposed to contribute 30 percent of their monthly income — about $1,181 — toward rent, with taxpayers picking up the difference. But the actual rent paid (referred to as the Total Tenant Payment) is based on the household’s gross annual income minus numerous exclusions, such as $480 for each dependent, $400 for an elderly person or a family member with a disability, unreimbursed medical expenses, “any reasonable child care expenses,” etc.
Moreover, actual household income may be much higher than what the family is required to report. Among the dozens of income exclusions HUD lists are:
» Lump-sum additions to family assets, such as inheritances, insurance payments, capital gains and settlements for personal or property losses;
» Special pay to a family member serving in the armed forces who is exposed to hostile fire;
» Temporary, nonrecurring or sporadic income;
» Deferred periodic amounts from supplemental security benefits received in a lump-sum amount or in prospective monthly amounts;
» Earned income tax credit refund payments;
» Any amount of crime victim compensation under the Victims of Crime Act;
» Earnings to individuals participating in programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
Why shouldn’t income count as income? If money from the Agent Orange Settlement Fund or the Indian Claims Commission is green enough to buy beer and lottery tickets, there is no reason it can’t go toward rent.
And what about the matter of choice? A family of four with an income of $47,520 might be considered “low-income” in Arlington and Bethesda — but they wouldn’t be in other localities, where housing is more affordable. Where is the fairness in a system that allows people to move into neighborhoods they can’t afford and then demand that others pay their rent?
People who have so little regard for others do not make good neighbors. They are not interested in pulling their weight; their aim is to be carried by others. Undeniably, it is a problem when public housing projects concentrate social pathology, but enabling that contamination to spread and sicken the rest of society is no solution.
What a deal. I wonder if this program applies in Georgetown.
What is our exit strategy in the war on poverty? It’s a failed quagmire!
Any parent knows that it’s not human nature to place value on anything that hasn’t been earned.
I have no problem with this exclusion. Damn, if any military member needs public assistance, they should be earning more. An E-2 with 6 kids should have enough money to live on, especially if he is serving in a combat zone, or earning sea pay.
Last month there was a gang related shooting right next to the park my kid plays at.
I dare you to make a guess as to the residences of the two 'persons' involved.
L
You can scrub a pig, spinkle him with talc and he will turn right around and roll in the mud. Who is the stupid one? The scrubber, of course! Socialism is suicide!
I agree with you. But I don’t think those families will be the ones causing trouble.
I don't quite get this one. It means the husband or wife is in the MILITARY. That means they already get BAQ (housing allowance) and/or post housing...
Does anyone recall the story about the exchange between DC Mayor Marion Barry and a welfare mom with 9 or so illegitimate kids, who wanted to know what he (the government) was going to do for her?
Her apparent point is that Housing Vouchers Will Bring Crime To Your Neighborhood!!!!
To "prove" this, she unleashes a list of housing voucher rules, and some representative values for "fair market rent."
All very nice, but it does nothing support her claim. Nor does she address the abundant empirical evidence supporting the fact that public housing projects really do "concentrate social pathologies." That's why, for example, the highest murder and illegitimacy rates usually seem to be in the areas surrounding the local street named after Martin Luther King, which is also where the "projects" tend to be located.
I'll give Ms. Scarborough the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she would like somehow to address the "projects problem," rather than simply flapping her fingers at welfare payments.
But she doesn't offer any solutions, nor any compelling reason to take her column seriously. All she does, is to attack the rather obvious idea of dealing with the concentrated pathologies by breaking up the projects in which they metastasize.
There are cogent points to be made against the voucher proposal ... for example, one could reasonably predict that in many cases it would simply result in the spawning of a lot of "mini-projects" inhabited by groups of voucher-recipients who choose to camp out together.
But she doesn't raise any such points. The best she can do is to spew out a few statistics, and from them tenuously imply that crime will increase because housing vouchers will be used by those "who have so little regard for others."
Pretty lame. Ms. Scarborough should take a sabbatical to learn how to make a good argument.
Another failed liberal feel-good program. The best way to help the poor is to eliminate liberal social programs. Help those who can’t help themselves, I.E., the elderly and disabled, and the rest will learn to take care of themselves. Eliminate leftist programs that have destroyed the black family and blacks will be helped and the rest of the country too.
The FDR era modification of the USA into a Socialist state are unacceptable.
If vouchers are so great, then why can’t I have one to send my kids to a private school? It would actually cost the government less than one half the per pupil amount they are spending now. Oh, that’s right. Vouchers for thee but not for me.
>The best way to help the poor is to eliminate liberal social programs.<
All men should watch “Cinderella Man” on dvd.
The real problem, of course, is that our decadent society has ceased to condemn the social pathologies themselves -- we tend to glorify various aspects of them, not to mention subsidizing them.
FWIW, that "income redistribution" thing is the real basis of our illegal immigration problem. I'll leave it to you to work out the details on that one.
Vouchers are for you if you want to send your child to a better PUBLIC school. Vouchers bring competition. Competition brings improved quality. This is the way to appreciably raise the dismal standards of public education, so that all children can flourish. Vouchers are user free.
Also, all public schools should be under local, not federal control. And at the count of three, everybody! “Do away with the NEA!”
If you want to send your child to private school, be prepared to pay for that.
Scratch G'Town Make that CONGRESS!
I remember when all the gang members moved in around here.
The local police were initially overwhelmed and our taxes went up to pay for all the extra cops, judges, lawyers, jails, etc.
I respect the service of all, but fiercely disagree that the military should be paying an E-2 a wage that will support a family with six kids.
I am sorry but the very bottom of the enlisted ranks offers "entry-level positions." No experience needed, employer will train, rapid advancement for good workers.
The military offers great opportunities for young people in terms of the overall financial package (including re-up inducements, extensive training and education, and post-service educational and other G.I. benefits).
I guess that I am from the old school, but I don't see entry-level military service as something that should be expected to support a large family, regardless of the deployment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.