One in 45 children in the USA — 1.6 million children — were living on the street, in homeless shelters or motels, or doubled up with other families last year, according to the National Center on Family Homelessness.
The numbers represent a 33% increase from 2007, when there were 1.2 million homeless children, according to a report the center is releasing today.
“This is an absurdly high number,” says Ellen Bassuk, president of the center. “What we have new in 2010 is the effects of a man-made disaster caused by the economic recession. ”¦ We are seeing extreme budget cuts, foreclosures and a lack of affordable housing.”
I know there isn’t an easy answer to the homeless problem, and it really bothers me to see children on the streets. Municipalities are really strapped for money with which to provide shelter, especially during this time of the year, and churches are helping, but they can’t do it all, and they’re having to find alternate shelter for the chronically indigent and homeless. We talk of building affordable housing, but it seldom materializes, and when it does, it’s still outside the income level of many of the working homeless.
Is there a workable answer out there?
Well, the solution would appear to be to stop supporting housing prices and let housing find its natural level, which would be within a few years income of the average working person. This would however impact the main asset of the elderly who vote, while children do not.
Only 44 thousand folks over 65 are homeless (2010 numbers), compared to 1.6 million kids. However we have agreed as a nation to a system that takes resources from the young to prop up assets (housing) for the old, to pay for healthcare preferentially for the old (who get medicare) instead of the less generous medicaid which pays for children, and for pension transfer payments taken from the young to give to the old.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/03/29/homelessness-surge-elderly-report/
Clueless, I hate to bust your bubble, but that’s what we have to work with……like it or not. We need to find constructive ways to alleviate the problem, and complaining about things is not going to solve it. By not doing anything about it, we’re not making things any easier for the unfortunate ones among us……the kids who are being hurt the most.
You mentioned taking assets from the young to give to the old. My wife and I paid taxes for all of our working lives, and while we were doing that, some of that money went to help pay for the Social Security that our parents received while they were living. Our parents also paid into the same system for THEIR parents’ support. If you have adult children, they will no doubt pay into that system too, thereby helping YOU, should you need that help.
It isn’t a “giveaway” system; it’s social insurance, which is intended to assist us all, and not just the retired people who perhaps didn’t have the luxury of investing their money for a secure retirement.
Now, getting back to the subject of this thread: I appreciate concerns about the lack of affordable housing, and letting the housing market settle to a floating level is all well and good, but it still doesn’t address the problem of housing……and home ownership……that everyone can truly afford. And there is the core word: AFFORDABLE. How do you design and build truly affordable housing and make it available to everyone who demonstrates a need for it? And how do you provide affordable financing to those people?
Solve that problem, and you’ll benefit everyone.
Cennydid, I too have paid taxes all my life. Nor am I complaining. I anticipate working until I die (probably well into my 70s) and I do not anticipate that I will equal the longevity of my parents because frankly pacemakers and breast cancer treatments will become a thing of the past. These have always been funded by making working folks pay more in order to support low cost health care for older folks, regardless of income, and regardless of the return in useful function from these transfer payments. This is an obvious ponzi scheme no different from Social security or Enron that will fail within 10 years. It is already failing as hospitals close, and as physicians leave medicare. Further it deserves to fail.
Constructive ways of dealing with the problem of homelessness and child poverty includes naming the problem. Resources were taken from the parents of young children, and were allocated by government fiat to the old, who spent it on new hips and vacation cottages in Florida. College used to be low cost and subsidized, students now graduate deeply in debt. Our generation had low cost college, our children’s generation pays through the nose.
In a just society, it is appropriate to determine how much of a society’s resources should be spent on which segments. Right now we already have rationing. If you have cerebral palsy (essentially a stroke) and you are an infant, or if you have sickle cell anemia and you have a stroke at the age of 5 you will get much worse care than if you are 85 years old and have a stroke. The 85 year old will go to her community hospital where her pastor, friends and family will cluster around. She will get rehab in her community. The 5 year old will be sent 300 miles away to a specialty children’s hospital far from her parents, and will be lucky to get any rehab. The infant may well die. This is because coverage for children is medicaid which pays about 40 cents on the dollar. Thus, nobody can have a primary medicaid practice and stay in business. This encourages both hospitals and physicians to say “I’m too stupid to take care of kids.” In 1981 every community had a hospital with a neonatal ward. Now neonatal wards are found in large cities in teaching hospitals and pediatric specialists are as rare as hens teeth. That didn’t happen to old people. Medicare was protected when Medicaid was not, because old people vote, and they didn’t want to hear people say “I’m too stupid to take care of the elderly. You are too complex for me.” Why was it protected? Was it because old people are more valuable to society than kids? Or was it because old people vote?
THIS IS WRONG. We already ration. We should be rationing rationally. Rather than standing around saying “Gosh too bad about all those homeless children and kids who can’t find medical care, Oh well its not my business” we should sit down and rearrange the pie. That will mean that some of us (including myself) will pay a great deal more and get a great deal less, and die a great deal earlier. It will also mean that younger generations will have a greater chance of having some of the numerous opportunities that were lavished on the generations who are currently passing from the scene.
It is true that we all of us (myself included) have paid taxes since we were 15. That doesn’t change the fact that our taxes do not pay for the debts we have rung up, which we are bequeathing to generations who follow us.
As for “affordable housing”. That is easy. Let the housing markets fail. Stop subsidizing housing. Stop the tax exemptions. Let people pick up forclosed houses for 1,000. Stop the regulation about “what constitutes a house.” Permit anybody to build the sort of two room housing that places like “Food for the poor” builds in Haiti for 3,000 bucks. Or you can buid habitat for humanity housing for 20,000. If you stop the senseless regulation, then people could save up for a house the way they used to.
Are we prepared to pay the price of these changes? Are we prepared to decide on who lives or dies, such as in “Soylent Green?”
We have already been paying that price. What we decided around 1990 was that it would be children who died, and old people who lived. Soylent Green indeed.
Call your local hospital and say “I have a 2 year old with brittle diabetes and a history of ketoacidosis. Where can I find a pediatrician or pediatric endocrinologist who accepts Medicaid?” Then call whatever (bogus) list they give you and see if you can get an appointment in less than 3-6 months (hospitals are required to maintain “lists.” They aren’t required to update them. Then call your local hospital and say “My mother is 70 years old and has brittle diabetes and ketoacidosis. Where can I find an internist or endocrinologist who accepts Medicare?” See what the difference might be.
Soylent Green is already here. What I am suggesting is that equation needs to be changed so that the burden falls more equally on the shoulders of those who can best bear it. I also feel that Christ has always had a special place for the poor and for children. “LET THE LITTLE CHILDREN COME UNTO ME AND HINDER THEM NOT.” That means not only more taxes for the “wealthy” (currently described as receiving more than 150,000 a year), but fewer benefits for the old, at the expense of the young. (I might add that that will severely and negatively impact me on both fronts). That’s okay by me. Seniors saying “I paid my taxes, and I am owed” is no different from “rich folks” saying I create jobs and I am owed.” Nobody is owed anything. We are all of us stewards.