Poverty is expensive, and so is letting people be poor

You know the funny thing about poverty? It is pretty expensive, and it is definitely more cost effective to just give people money and homes. Scott Keyes discusses this for ThinkProgress. Studies have proven this time and time again. Giving the homeless homes is more cost effective than having to place them during weather emergencies, and that is before the medical costs of living on the streets.

Keyes points to a new study coming out of Charlotte and the University of North Carolina Charlotte which examines a new apartment complex what aims to assist homeless people. Moore Place has 85 unit and was opened in 2012. The residents are required to contribute 30% of their income as rent, which includes benefits such as disability, veterans, or Social Security. The rest of the housing costs are covered by a mix of both local and federal grants and private donors, totally $14,000 per person annually.

Researchers found Moore Place saved taxpayers more than $1.8 million in the first year. These savings come from health care and incarceration. Because of course. The researchers found that Moore Place residents visited the emergency room 447 fewer times in the year after getting housing. These residents had fewer problems with the law as well; arrests dropped 78%. Additionally, despite opponents fears, only 15 tenants got in trouble and were asked to leave Moore Place in the first year. Due to the large success, Charlotte City Council has unanimously approved $1 million more to Moore Place for 120 more units.

Welp, can’t say any of this is surprising except that Charlotte is supporting this initiative. Fingers-crossed other cities take note including let’s say DC, with their ridiculous homelessness and housing problems. Remember DC don’t have many beds for the homeless, which was a huge issue this past winter because SNOW.

Cities are criminalizing the homeless and those helping them

Someone explain the reasoning behind this. Arresting and forcibly displacing the homeless doesn’t end homelessness. It overcrowds the prisons and pushes them into communities they have no ties to and are unfamiliar with. I listen to the story on NPR’s Morning Edition last week, “More cities sweeping homeless into less prominent areas,” by Jessica Jones. I recommend listening to or reading the article.

This story focuses on North Carolina’s efforts which include arresting those who distribute food to the homeless in parks. Take a minute. And why? Why would a city target an already vulnerable population and those trying to help them? Because these cities are trying to generate revenue, and god forbid the citizens they are trying to make money off of realize there are homeless people or worse actually have to interact with one. The article includes a statement from Candace Jefferies, 21, who depends on the meals provided in the park to survive; she believes the city is trying to remove the homeless, “I think the reason why they doin’ it ‘cause they don’t want us in the park at all—nobody, like everybody just disappeared.”

The article notes cities from Seattle to Tampa have engaged in these techniques to force the homeless and those who assist them. These techniques usually involve criminalizing homelessness. The article had a great quote from a local North Carolina activist, Patrick O’Neill, who argued, “If you want Moore Square to be free homeless people, then provide homes for people so they don’t have to come to Moore Square. If you don’t want us feeding the hungry…at Moore Square, if that’s unsightly and an embarrassment to our city, then do something about it, and make sure the hungry are fed.”

Preach. Rest assured that the city council won’t be arresting any more charities for feeding the homeless in Moore Square. However, this is a bigger issue that just Moore Square or even North Carolina. Much like so many other issues the homeless are taking a back seat to municipal attempts to develop themselves.

Aside from the immediate results, fewer to no homeless people being present, what are the results they aim to get here? Because one, the homeless can always come back. And two, this doesn’t address any of the issues that contribute to homelessness. Perhaps a better solutions to appear to have ended homelessness would be to actually try to end homelessness? Just me?

Oh, the anti-choice are coming for you

Ok, so I know we’re all watching Texas, but I expect this will be a late night, and me still without Internet in my new place. *shakes fist*

That said, as we heard during testimony (invited testimony from a Law Professor) this is really all about how Justice Kennedy will vote when this or one of the other bills is taken to the Supreme Court as a challenge to Roe vs. Wade. Circuit Courts can’t disagree with one another, and at this point the 9^th Circuit has held up the implementation of an Arizona bill that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks. The 9^th Circuit is one of the most liberal courts while the 5^th Circuit is one of the more conservative. Texas falls in the 5^th Circuit. They are setting this up for a Constitutional showdown in the Supreme Court.

I bring this up because the Wisconsin Abortion Law that was pushed through by Gov. Scott Walker was blocked by a District Court Judge. U.S. District Court Judge William Conley granted the order to block following a lawsuit filed Friday by the Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services on Monday as reported by Scott Bauer. The suit alleges that the requirement would unconstitutionally restrict the availability of abortions in the State, violated the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantee and unconstitutionally treats doctors who perform abortions differently from those who perform other procedures. This is different reasoning from the 9^th Circuit decision, but relevant all the same.

Conley stated, “there is a troubling lack of justification for the hospital admitting privileges requirement.” He added that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the states must prove the restrictions on abortion rights must be reasonably aimed at preserving the mother’s health. He added, “Moreover, the record to date strongly supports a finding that no medical purpose is served by this requirement.”

The bill was introduced in the Legislature on June 4^th, passed nine days later, and signed into law on Friday. It took effect Monday. It requires women obtain an ultrasound before getting an abortion, this provision isn’t being challenged.

The Planned Parenthood’s CEO Terry Huyck said, “This ruling is a step in the right direction for the women of Wisconsin who can now continue to make their own personal, private health care decision. We are confident that the Court will ultimately recognize if ACT 37 is not blocked, it would unconstitutionally restrict the ability of Wisconsin women, including victims of rape and incest and women who are in need of an abortion to preserve their health, to access safe and legal abortions.”

Supporters of the law claim the ultrasound will help the woman bond with the fetus and convince her to keep the fetus. They also claim that this bill’s admitting privileges protects women who have complications.

But what this is really about like in Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina, this is about preventing women from having control over their own bodies and specifically abortion. The bill demands that if a complication occurs the doctor performing the abortion treat the complication, but this isn’t actually the case. Usually, a complication would be handled by a specialist not an OBGYN. 

Ok, so let’s jog over to North Carolina. Allison Kilkenney had an article for The Nation on Moral Mondays and the anti-choice garbage coming out of that state. Moral Mondays are a response to the Republican government which is the first time this has happened in more than a century. Activists have been protecting the abortion limiting bill, and thus far more than 700 people have been arrested. On Monday 2,000 people flooded into Raleigh and 64 protesters were arrested after they refused to leave the legislative chamber. Among those arrested was Janet Colm, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina.

KilKenny concluded her piece with an epic few lines, “All of this raises the question: what’s the point of living in a democracy with a First Amendment if lawmakers are going to sneak legislation through in the middle of the night and have concerned citizens arrested when they try to object?”

A very good question indeed. When your elected officials no longer represent you what is the best course of action? The radical in me would point out they can’t detain all of us. However, the pragmatist in me would point out if we’re jailed we can’t drive them out of our government, and we mean to drive them out of or government. Of course, do we have the time to wait for elections? How many women will die or doctors prosecuted during this period?

So apparently there were two states passing laws to punish poor people last week

Because you know all these reps are like “Nailed it.”

Think Progress had this first piece on Thursday by Nicole Flatow.  Gov. Sam Brownback signed a bill last week to drug-test recipients of both welfare and unemployment. This makes Kansas the first state to implement the ALEC and Big Parma backed legislation because they will not be out done by other idiotic states. The law passed with a Democrat added provision to drug test legislators, but the provision is pretty weak. But tip of my hat to that Dem, who is at least trying.

The Wichita Eagle stated:

“The drug testing bill lets the Department for Children and Families require urine tests of any welfare recipient suspected of using illegal drugs. That could be triggered by a person’s demeanor, missed appointment or police records.

“Opponents of the bill said that may leave the decision open to people’s biases. But the bill was swiftly approved by the House 106-16 and backed by the Senate on a 29-9 vote […]

“Senate Bill 149, effective July 1, also bans anyone convicted of a drug-related felony from getting welfare for five years. Those convicted a second time lose benefits for life.

“The testing program for unemployment recipients is similar, although Department of Labor officials will require employers who usually drug test job applicants to submit a list of people who applied and didn’t get a job because they failed a pre-employment drug screen […]

“The state estimates it will need to hire four more employees to deal with drug testing and treatment management under the bill. The drug testing program and treatment is estimated to cost about $1 million the first year, after any savings from people losing benefits.”

In case you’re keeping score: 8 states have laws that test public benefit recipients or applicants, and 29 have introduced legislation in the last year.  A federal law passed last year authorized drug tests for unemployment beneficiaries. The bills keep spreading even through several courts have ruled to block state drug-testing laws as being potentially unconstitutional and all early indications show these laws are costing more money than just given the 2% of welfare recipients who use drugs benefits. The Florida law has been blocked by a federal appeals court back in February because, “The simple fact of seeking public assistance does not deprive a TANF applicant of the same constitutional protections from unreasonable searches that all other citizens enjoy.” The court also noted there is “nothing inherent to the condition of being impoverished that supports the conclusion that there is a ‘concrete danger' that impoverished individuals are prone to drug use or that should drug use occur.”

The Kansas law doesn’t mandate testing like the Florida law, but instead it requires “reasonable suspicion” to perform drug testing of already enrolled beneficiaries. Those who fail the first test can have their results retested at their own expense, and will be reimbursed by the state if the subsequent test is negative. If they test positive, they have to complete drug treatment and job skills programs before they are tested again and reconsidered.

Gov. Brownback, while signing the bill, called drug addiction a “scourge on Kansas,” but the law is vague on how to address addiction. Drug abuse programs are mandated for those who test positive, but there is nothing about an assessment in the law. Instead, it results in a poor person without income for six weeks while attending the program.

In a second story from last week it is North Carolina’s turn to shine. PolicyShop.net had a post by Ilana Novick last week on North Carolina’s legislature passing a background checks for social services bill. Novick begins by correctly asserting that you don’t need a background check to buy a gun in North Carolina, but now they are trying to require one for social services. There is so much wrong with the world. The bill, House Bill 392, enjoyed bipartisan support on a 106-6 vote. Wrap your mind around that.

The North Carolina House Health and Human Services Committee voted to make background checks mandatory in all of North Carolina’s Department of Health and Social Services (DSS) offices for anyone applying for benefits and trying to renew them. The law also requires that DSS tell local law enforcement agencies if an individual is a fugitive or has an outstanding warrant.

Of course, the bill provides no funding for performing the background checks. A lobbyist representing NC’s DSS noted at the hearing that the bill: “Right now, the county (DSS offices) are just strapped. We can’t afford another underfunded mandate.” It should cost the state's computers $144,841 to perform the background checks. The costs to local governments are unclear at this time, which is obviously why it passed.

North Carolina is the first state to pass a law requiring background checks, but according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, seven states have passed legislation for drug testing and 29 others have proposed it. I’ve ranted about how and why that is ineffective and a waste of money. But these are all backdoor attempts to end welfare and the social safety net.

Of course,  people looking for benefits almost always have children. So we’re targeting a vulnerable population.

Representative Paul Luebcke noted that the bill assumes “poor people were automatically suspect while well-off people were considered above reproach.” Yes, because poor people are all criminals and burdens on the system. Oh feel my rage. Luebcke, in an attempt to be my favorite person, submitted an amendment requesting that the state change the way job development grants are awarded making CFOs and CEOs subject to background checks. It was symbolic and not voted one, but the point stands.

Fingers-crossed this doesn’t take off. I don’t have the self-control for it. I should make a bingo game: this week in stupid welfare policy changes that do absolutely nothing but persecute the poor and cost money no one has. All of this is ridiculous and ineffective. I wish everyone would leave welfare to people who know what it is and how it works. Also, someone for the love of all things hold vote these idiots out of office. That is all.