So, the city of Fort Wayne and the United Way, having successfully eliminated manufacturing decline, downtown stagnation, teen pregnancy, moral decay and all the other problems that plague us, have now committed to wiping out homelessness in 10 years:
“This is not just a plan to sit on the shelf and get dusty,” Richard said. “This is not a strategic plan. This is an action plan.”
Well, that's not too ambitious, is it? (In all my years of covering government, I've seen a lot of plans. And for every single one of them, somebody has said, "We want to make sure this one does not just gather dust on the shelf," after which, in 99 percent of the cases, the report either gathered dust on a shelf, or a lot of money was wasted.)
Where in the world is this coming from? From the federal government handing out great big wads of money, that's where:
Even before the hurricanes, the White House was targeting homelessness for experiments in "compassionate conservatism" that focus on housing single adults. The Bush administration's $4 billion budget request for next year for all federal programs dealing with homelessness is a record amount.
[. . . ]
The president set a goal in a 2002 directive of ending chronic homelessness by 2012. HUD offers bonus money to cities that focus on the chronically homeless — adults who live for years in doorways or shelters. In response, more than 200 cities have adopted 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness.
HUD defines a chronically homeless person as "an unaccompanied individual with a disabling condition" who has been continuously homeless for a year or more, or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years.
Lord, lord. Is there really any difference between "compassionate conservatism" and, say, the Great Society? Remember the War on Poverty? How's that going lately? It's all just government thinking it can solve all problems by spending money on them.
Notice that 2,500 people here fit the definition of the problem they've pledging to solve, but you can get a number that ridiculously big by talking about those "are either homeless, or on the brink of being homeless, because they spend more than half their income on housing . . ." In 2005, a federally mandated count revealed 350 homeless on the street and in shelters. In 2004, the January count revealed 104 homeless. That's not nearly enough people to justify a mammoth 10-year plan. If you want strong support to solve a problem, it has to be a really BIG problem.
This is one of the best illustrations in recent memory of why we need to start reigning in elected officials, of all political persuasions. And it wouldn't hurt to keep closer track of how our charitable dollars are spent, either.
