Government Craziness
So I was at this housing meeting on Wednesday. We get together once a month and the central mass housing alliance explains the rules to us, so we can better help the people we serve. they are doing a good thing.
but one program, they need to explain it every month, because it changes every month. And here is the rule right now:
Families who have children who might become homeless can get help. If they apply for help, and are qualified for help (lots of initials about criteria i don't understand), they will be given a choice: either the money they need to stay in their present housing (up to $4K in back rent, hospital bills, etc.), or they can go to a shelter. (for families "shelter" is code for a remote hotel).
If they choose shelter, they leave their housing before they get an eviction on their record. If they choose to stay THEY CANNOT HAVE SHELTER FOR ONE MORE YEAR. That is, if they have another medical bill, or another problem, or heaven forbid lose their job, that is too bad, they can't use the state shelter system.
It is hard to decide, so there is a full staff of housing counselors to help each family decide which is the right option. To help them predict the future.
So I must say, I assume this is where the right gets some of the arguments that government programs are dumb. Worcester has four full time people whose job it is to help people figure out which government program they are qualified for, and then to help them decide whether or not to take part. And then a meeting once a month to teach us enough about it so that we can convince people to go to that counseling.
I mutter to the guy next to me that I have a masters degree and I can't understand which programs are available to whom, and he mutters back, that is why we need to get rid of the government.
Ok. Glad HEs helping folk out there. But really, we spend so much money making sure that people aren't cheating the system that we don't have any money left to help the people who are in need.
Wait, that isn't what I wanted to say. What I wanted to say, or to ask, is how do we have a debate on how to fix this system?
It feels like the choices presented are to have complicated programs that cost a lot to deliver, or to have no programs and let people die.
How do we talk about the middle ground?
but one program, they need to explain it every month, because it changes every month. And here is the rule right now:
Families who have children who might become homeless can get help. If they apply for help, and are qualified for help (lots of initials about criteria i don't understand), they will be given a choice: either the money they need to stay in their present housing (up to $4K in back rent, hospital bills, etc.), or they can go to a shelter. (for families "shelter" is code for a remote hotel).
If they choose shelter, they leave their housing before they get an eviction on their record. If they choose to stay THEY CANNOT HAVE SHELTER FOR ONE MORE YEAR. That is, if they have another medical bill, or another problem, or heaven forbid lose their job, that is too bad, they can't use the state shelter system.
It is hard to decide, so there is a full staff of housing counselors to help each family decide which is the right option. To help them predict the future.
So I must say, I assume this is where the right gets some of the arguments that government programs are dumb. Worcester has four full time people whose job it is to help people figure out which government program they are qualified for, and then to help them decide whether or not to take part. And then a meeting once a month to teach us enough about it so that we can convince people to go to that counseling.
I mutter to the guy next to me that I have a masters degree and I can't understand which programs are available to whom, and he mutters back, that is why we need to get rid of the government.
Ok. Glad HEs helping folk out there. But really, we spend so much money making sure that people aren't cheating the system that we don't have any money left to help the people who are in need.
Wait, that isn't what I wanted to say. What I wanted to say, or to ask, is how do we have a debate on how to fix this system?
It feels like the choices presented are to have complicated programs that cost a lot to deliver, or to have no programs and let people die.
How do we talk about the middle ground?