Cross-posted from My Left Wing and also available at Blue House Diaries.
"Study: 744,000 Are Homeless in U.S."
WASHINGTON (AP) -- There were 744,000 homeless people in the United States in 2005, according to the first national estimate in a decade. A little more than half were living in shelters, and nearly a quarter were chronically homeless, according to the report Wednesday by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, an advocacy group.
A majority of the homeless were single adults, but about 41 percent were in families, the report said.
Apparently, this was first study in ten years in assessing the number of homeless people in America. Unfortunately, this isn't particularly surprising. In a society ruled by the incentives of money and power, who is to gain by helping the homeless? Which Congressperson is going to bend over backwards to secure the votes of their homeless constituents (who, I have a hunch don't vote). Which corporation is going to donate money to a party to ensure the party is doing all it can to help people who don't buy their products or services?
The AP article notes that the Housing and Urban Development Department will be releasing an assessment of their own, and is planning on continuing to do so by issuing annual reports.
For some reason, I'm cynical about this whole matter.
My inclination is to say that the government should be responsible for helping these people. One homeless man told me a story once about how a cop had went out of the way one cold, winter night in Boston by bringing him into the station. The man had remarked that he had so much to drink that he probably would have died out in the cold. He also noted that the shelter he had usually gone to, only allowed people to stay for a certain amount of nights a week.
What's remarkable, is that the story paints the cop as a hero. And for that man, it's true, he may not be alive if the cop didn't act. From my understanding, the cop did something outside his job description. And yet, taking a step back, it's crazy to think that the government shouldn't be obligated to be involved in such a case.
So, what's there to do in the meantime. Until, the government does take a bigger role in such matters. Or is it even naïve to assume that the government will do so at some point?
The future is unwritten, there's no guarantee that a progressive revolution will take hold.
Jerome a Paris wrote a diary a little while back titled, "Why I don't do charity". Before getting into the details of his argument, he wrote:
I consider that organised support for the poor, the hungry or the sick should not be the responsibility of individuals, but rather that of public authorities, duly enpowered to do so and duly funded to do so.
I consider that the only way to take care in a durable, fair and consistent way of such tasks is if the State, or at least regional authorities, do it. Thus, I consider that I have no moral duty to go and participate myself personally to such soliarity.
And as one could probably anticipate, there were a healthy number of people who were weary of entrusting the state to follow through on such responsibilities. This raises one of the paradoxes of being a progressive observer of the Bush administration over the years.
On one hand, there is a theoretical responsibility of a given government to take care of people living within its borders. On the other, there are legitimate concerns in entrusting the actual government with public funds as they have gone into funding a botched foreign policy and social catastrophes such as homelessness haven't even made it on the radar.
In the meantime, the only humane approach to this matter seems to be donating to organizations which directly help those in need. The systemic problems must not be overlooked, but no person should freeze to death out in the cold until these problems are addressed.
Resources:
National Alliance to End Homelessness
AP: Study: 744,000 Are Homeless in U.S. Referenced above
AP: Homelessness by State