The only words I have for this is “more mean-spirited cuts, more balancing the budget on the backs of the powerless who are already crawling”.
Here is a quote that really says it all:
By reducing those eligible for shelter, Kehoe said the new regulations would save the state $520,000 this fiscal year and more than $11 million in fiscal 2010. “Given our limited resources, we wanted to encourage people to find housing or stay where they are, rather than encouraging them to come into the system,” she said.
As it is, Massachusetts has gone from zero homeless children to 1000 in a year, placed with a parent in a shelter or a motel.
These new rules cut the time a family can stay housed after earning more than $1532 a MONTH for a family of two from six months to three – that’s right – you are on the street if you get a job and cannot find an apartment you can afford in three months. And if you earn more than $1500 a month, and have only one child, you qualify for nothing.
Or you refuse a placement for a reason an authority figure considers not “good cause”. I remember a client of mine, who was moved from one placement to another with her kids and refused it, because the windows had bars on them and that triggered her PTSD. Not “good cause”.
Actually, part of why I really like Judge Gants is that I did a Temporary Restraining Order on that decision and he kept her in housing [and yes, that was pro bono…I would say for every hour in a court appointed case that is eligible for payment two or three hours are not eligible for payment – part of why the average “bar advocate” bills about 800 hours a year].
Here is a link to the whole story: http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
THIS is not what I expected from a Deval Patrick administration, frankly.
Like the decision by the Administrative Office of the Trial Court to eliminate the role of Guardian Ad Litem for Education without any warning, this action regarding the homeless, of changing regulations to save money just because no one has the power or ability to protect these poor people is morally wrong, and mean spirited.
No one is homeless on purpose. Making poverty more punitive will not make for less poverty.
Read the whole article. Does anyone agree this set of changes is shameful?
bob-neer says
And I think we should do better.
<
p>On the subject of shooting fish and contemporary U.S. culture, however, you might want to review this video:
<
p>
amberpaw says
-and nothing like being out in a boat, or canoe, in the dark, daring one to bite!
<
p>And guess what – I think the changes in this housing policy will be no more successful than the mythbusters were – lots of mess, lots of misery, and no reduction in either poverty or homelessness…
<
p>My sympathy, gotta say, is STILL with the trapped fish.
<
p>Even the icky dead fish … the idea of shooting at something that is already trapped, or saving $500,000 by squeezing the homeless who cannot fight back, have no lobbyists, and never went to your bosses fundraiser…but thanks for the mythbusters video. Junk Yard Wars and Mythbusters are a couple of the shows I have actually watched.
mollypat says
There are issues where I have disagreed with the Governor, namely casinos, but this is my first profound disappointment with the Patrick administration.
paddynoons says
Why not find some horrible budget waste (per diems, vice chair stipends, and legislative pensions, anyone?) and put the issue to the legislature as a choice between than and keeping homeless families off the street? I’m not saying it would be successful, but at least it would acknowledge that we’re sacrificing the most vulnerable so a bunch of hacks can get pensions or Staties can sit in their cars at construction sites.
amberpaw says
<
p>2. I agree that there are some very strange entitlements in place as to state pensions, and legislation passed on the q-t – and if you go to http://www.bostonherald.com/pr… and check out some of the salaries and job titles [the Health Connector & UMASS are a lot of fun that way] and compare that, or some of the pension shenanigans against failure to take care of homeless kids, or bridges and roads, there is a real problem.
<
p>However, all of the squiggles and twists together don’t come close to the amount cut in the 90s from structural revenue.
paddynoons says
I would happily increase some taxes in the state to pay for social services. But, as I’ve learned and as is probably evidenced by my posting on this blog, I’m not “most people.” The topic for my post was “symbolic politics” because I think the Governor needs to do a better job communicating his choices and priorities to the public. Sometimes, that will mean educating people, speaking to groups like the Chamber this morning, etc. Sometimes, however, it does require an act that shows the majority of people who are cynical about state government that he is on their side. So kicking the ever loving shit out of some interest group (like feather-bedded pensions or police details) gives him the political capital to keep homeless kids in shelters — maybe through just cuts, probably through cuts and higher taxes. We have the same goal in the end.
hesterprynne says
Among the federal stimulus help the state is going to receive in the next two years is $40 million that is intended for the specific purpose of helping the state meet the costs of serving more low-income families in need. The deficit in the shelter system can be covered with this federal stimulus money. The further harm that these proposed regulations would cause to the children and families already experiencing homelessness is entirely unnecessary.
ryepower12 says
through the stimulus funds coming our way, as well as raising taxes, maybe making some sensible cuts should we find any. We’ve got to be done with this concept of meeting our budget gaps through slashing the budget. It’s only costing us more money in the long run.
midge says
I was hoping to write up a post yesterday when I heard the news in the morning, but was surprised that no one had yet.
<
p>I think this is a rediculous idea, in times when it appears everyone is losing their homes, especially the most vulnerable.
<
p>And many homeless people are working, but are in a major Catch-22, which the new restrictions emphasize even more. Kick ’em while their down.
<
p>This policy seriously makes me question Patrick- he seemed to be running on a platform for the people of Massachusetts and worked hard for the more vulnerable populations and disadvantaged, especially a friend of the kids. Now, I’m not sure I understand. While I know the state budget is very tight right now, it seems that cuts need to be for frivolousness and not for areas where there is a lot of (unfortunate) growth.
fieldscornerguy says
I worked for years on welfare issues and with homeless folks under the Swift and Romney administrations. While we knew that no administration would be perfect, people held out hope that a Democratic governor would spare us these constant attacks on the poor.
<
p>Apparently, that’s not the case. Deval Patrick, you are showing yourself to be no better than your predecessors. Please prove me wrong.
billxi says
There is no affordable, accessible housing to be had. I spent 2 months in a nursing home because of it. No joke, you morons. START BUILDING STOP TALKING!
liveandletlive says
It’s infuriating. We should hire an accountant for the government and find out where the nonsense is. They always, and I mean always find the painful things to cut so that we will agree to tax increases. They do it at every level of government, from Federal to state to local cities and towns. They are looking for another prop 2 1/2 override in our town this year. I was just looking at our own town budget and found plenty of places that could be slimmed down a little/lot. Did we really nead the $43,000 police cruiser? (We are a very small town with very little crime) Did we really need that beautiful granite sign in front of the middle school, that will surely outlast the school. There are so many places where money is spent way beyond what is reasonable and necessary. I guess that’s what happens when these decision makers are shopping with someone elses money. And they have the nerve to ask for more money when we the people can barely meet our own basic needs these days. I am so fed up. I have a great idea. Let’s get a copy of the state budget and sit down and mull it over. We can all choose a piece of nonsense spending and write it on our own protest sign. Then we can protest in Boston with our signs saying cut this out of the budget, not homeless shelter funding. I am so ready.
amberpaw says
so I am told. Why not join ’em? With your signs and gazebo line items. You won’t find 3.5 billion worth of items to complain about, though.
liveandletlive says
Thanks, Maybe I will go. These people could use some support. Even $500,000 worth of items would be worth the effort, and it would send a message to stop the nonsense.
bostonshepherd says
and there’s more than $3.5 billion which could be saved immediately without having to hire Warren Buffet to figure it out.
<
p>By my estimate, labor costs alone in MA could be reduced by 30% without affecting funding for programs. In reality, that’s only a 15% cut in manpower because that’s how inefficient the state labor force is … and I know this first hand from dealing with the state’s IT department (plenty of no shows, slackers, political-appointee know-nothings, and half-speed dimwits, an insult to the other 50% who are IT professionals and work hard.) I think that would save about $3 billion right there.
<
p>Not including pension reform … how about starting a MA employee 401(k) program and get rid of the state’s defined benefit program? Couple of billion annual savings there.
<
p>Another (minor) savings…get rid of the so-called filed sub bid laws for construction of schools. Since I have direct knowledge of these regulations (Chpt 149), I’m quite sure we could save $350,000,000 annually which is just the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s savings estimate. The towns’ saving would add more.
<
p>If this were extended to all state construction projects, you could save 30% on all capital building projects — from sidewalks, town halls, highways, to Logan terminals.
<
p>We could buy all those homeless who show up on 2/26 condos!
mr-lynne says
… that you’re talking about? Is this about the DBE goals that are typically in an RFP?
amberpaw says
You are throwing numbers around – with no sources and no way to fact check you.
<
p>You are insulting scores of people who work for the state as no shows, idiots, and do nothings – which is not my experience with working with state employed social workers or clerical staff, at all. Are you really saying cut the state workforce by 50% and no one would notice?
<
p>As to 401k plans, they are not equivalent and do not provide the security of a defined benefit pension plan. Our 401k dropped $70,000 in paper value in the last quarter.
<
p>Have some manipulative types scammed the state pension system? Absolutely. Reform is needed; abolition is not. Also, frankly, reform is possible – abolition is so unlikely that your comments come across to me as mere posturing.
fieldscornerguy says
AmberPaw, could you let people know when and where and who’s organizing? I know that BMG tends to be more of a discussion site than a mobilization site, but since folks seem pretty uniformly upset about this, it would be great to share the info.
justice4all says
there is not an iota of difference between Deval and Romney. He’s evicting the politically weak and the socially disenfranchised- the homeless, people with mental retardation, the mentally ill….while sacred cows remain healthy and whole in the Commonwealth.
<
p>If this is the work of a progressive democrat, then no thanks, I’ll take my chances on anyone else.