Skip to main content

Throughout the years, from the Reagan Administration through 2008, we’ve heard a lot of talk about compassionate conservatism.  According to conservative conventional wisdom, it is entirely possible for a state and/or federal government to be fiscally conservative without, at the same time, disenfranchising those who are economically disadvantaged and others who are vulnerable, like the children of the poor.  

The reality?  When conservatives talk about compassion they are reading GOP talking point memos.   The real GOP imperative:

Kiss up to special and corporate interests.  Kick down the everyday constituents.

I guess Ronald Reagan thought he embodied compassionate conservatism when his administration deemed ketchup a vegetable in the public schools’ federal lunch programs.  What’s wrong with poor kids eating a paste comprised mostly of salt and sugar with nil nutritional value?  It has a vegetable kind of product added to it.   Let them eat a salt/sugar paste with artificial coloring.

Reagan’s budget cuts, especially those involving social programs, effectively dismantled all safety nets for the nation’s poor.

When George W. Bush ran for the Presidential office in 2000 he promoted himself as a compassionate conservative.  His tax cuts would produce more jobs.  Life would be good for all.

But W.s significant tax cuts for the nation’s most wealthy yielded few jobs and benefits for middle and working class Americans.  Jobs are outsourced to third world countries where labor is really, really cheap. Profits are hidden in offshore tax havens.  American corporations are no longer required to pay their fair share of taxes.

And so, few jobs and economic life lines were thrown to the middle and working class during the dark days of W.

So much for compassionate conservatism.

Yesterday while driving home from work I listened to local news on Pacifica Radio, KPFT 90.1 FM (Houston).   The last segment reported on our state’s disgraceful lack of critical resources for homeless children.  The bottom line, Texas is the worst place in the U.S. for homeless children.  

That would be the low life bottom pit of shame.

No, we are not ranked second to the bottom of the pile as we are with our K-12 public  school rankings.  Au contraire - we are numero uno, i.e. the worst among the worse in providing crucial services for poverty stricken children.  

I missed part of the coverage since I turned the radio on midway through the report.
A quick Google search yielded an article published in the Houston Chronicle in March 2009 that gives details of our disgraceful neglect of homeless children.  Our state’s poverty rate, by the way, is 23% while the rest of the U.S. averages 18%.  This is pretty stunning considering Texas is not exactly a poor state.   That said, one has only to drive through the city of Houston to witness the extraordinary differences between the haves and the haves not.   I am sure this holds true in other large cities here as well.

A study by the National Center on Family Homelessness  released Tuesday placed Texas 50th — last of all states — in how homeless children fare.

The ranking considered four areas: the percentage of homeless children; their overall well-being; risk factors for homelessness, such as poverty and foreclosure rates; and what the state is doing to address the problems.

"You’ve got a difficult context," said Dr. Ellen Bassuk, president of the national center that produced the report and an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

She said that the child poverty level in Texas is 23 percent, compared to 18 percent nationwide. Add to that the state’s high foreclosure rate and Texas children start off at a disadvantage.

"You’re a big state; you’ve got a significant problem," Bassuk said. "Texas needs to respond."

Texas needs to respond.

Crickets chirping.

Crickets continue to chirp.  And chirp.  And chirp.

The crickets died while chirping.

A new crop of crickets chirp.  

They are still chirping.

As I recall the number of homeless Americans grew exponentially during the Reagan Administration,  thanks to Reagan's budget cuts and overhaul of the tax codes.

Gov. Rick Perry likes to grandstand about turning down federal stimulus money for the unemployed and he enjoys promoting himself as a compassionate conservative at the same time.    According to Perry’s web site:

Gov. Rick Perry today said that it is the responsibility of a conservative and compassionate government to protect the most vulnerable in society. Speaking at the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute, Perry said that sweeping reforms will come to the beleaguered Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services programs and he announced that $1.5 million in Workforce Investment Act funds will be used to expand APS caseworker training in the current fiscal year.

"Conservative and compassionate government should provide a safety net for the most vulnerable among us, those in the dawn of their lives and the twilight of their years and those with little or no hope of self-sufficiency," Perry said. "Not every child is born into ideal circumstances, but every child is precious. When a child’s welfare is at risk, a case must not be ordered closed; it must be subject to immediate action."

I guess Perry does not think the unemployed are vulnerable.    And if children are so precious why are our public K-12 schools ranked so low and why do we chose to ignore the needs of impoverished homeless children here?  

Why do Senators like John Cornyn vote against the SCHIP program (health insurance for low income children)?

As if this is not enough, Texas is telling psychiatrists here to pay back the Medicare payments they received for treating impoverished people who suffer from mental illness.  

In all fairness this is not entirely the fault of Texas.  If I understand it correctly, feds have a hand in this reprehensible act because the government relies on a 1965 statute of the law that established Medicare.  During the time of Medicare’s enactment many mentally ill patients were institutionalized.  

Texas is stepping up enforcement of an old law denying Medicaid coverage to adult patients treated in psychiatric institutions, a move expected to leave even fewer doctors to treat the state’s mentally ill poor.

The law is the original statute that established Medicaid in 1965. Conceived at a time when mentally ill patients were routinely institutionalized for lengthy periods of time, it is widely criticized today because psychiatric treatment and health care generally have evolved so much.

Why on earth are the federal and state governments relying on a law that is archaic and complete out of synch with 21st century mental illness realities?

A federal audit spanning 2001-2007 indicated there were $1.67 million in "improper payments."  It seems the federal government and the state of Texas believe the psychiatrists did not properly screen their patients and many of the charges were unnecessary.

The improper payments, which total $1.67 million, were identified in a federal audit into the years 2001 to 2007. Following it, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission implemented better screening measures to deny such billing.

Some psychiatric groups can owe the government $130,000 and individual doctors could owe up to $40,000.  The federal government will get 60% of that owed while the state will receive 40%.

I was in disbelief when I received the letter," said Dr. Jason Baron, a private-practice psychiatrist who admits patients at a number of area hospitals. "It appears to me a way of disenfranchising people from getting the treatment they need."

Disenfranchising people indeed. It is always about the money. This is precisely what is happening on a number of levels and it has been going on since St. Ronnie.
 
So, what is going to happen to people who need treatment and cannot afford it?  Do any   conservatives out there have any idea?  

Are the poor and mentally ill not considered vulnerable, Guv?

The systematic disenfranchisement of the mentally ill began, once again, with yours truly, the revered St. Ronald Reagan the Compassionate Conservative whose cuts in social welfare funding drove patients out of mental institutions during his saintly term.  

According to the Electronic Journal of Sociology conservative backlash against the welfare state drove the Reagan agenda.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the reduction of funding for social welfare policies during the 1980s is the result of a conservative backlash against the welfare state. With such a backlash, it should be expected that changes in the policies toward involuntary commitment of the mentally ill reflect a generally conservative approach to social policy more generally. In this case, however, the complex of social forces that lead to less restrictive guidelines for involuntary commitment are not the result of conservative politics per se, but rather a coalition of fiscal conservatives, law and order Republicans, relatives of mentally ill patients, and the practitioners working with those patients.

Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness

There they go again.  Conservatives pimped for the demands of special interest groups and those of the business community. They completely ignored the critical issue at hand, i.e. the treatment of mental illness.

The conservative backlash against an imagined welfare state and the Republican’s desire to please the moneyed fat cats are alive, well and furiously humming along today.  The GOP is locked into an operating mode that harks back to the ancient times of the Reagan Administration.  Its agenda has not changed.

The Texas GOP assault on the poor and minorities continues to be relentless and pervasive.  It is hammering the impoverished and disenfranchised on all levels possible:  the homeless, public education, voting rights, health care insurance for children and mental health treatment.

Anytime a conservative calls oneself compassionate it means one really, really loathes those who truly need compassion. Indeed, compassion is not a concept conservatives can even remotely fathom.  

Originally posted to Libby Shaw on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 10:21 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for Compassionate Liberals and Progressives (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, DRo

    We care about our nation's poor and the disenfranchised.  

  •  "Compassionate conservative" always was oxymoron (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Libby Shaw, bobsc

    It was never anything more than a marketing ploy. It couldn't have been, because compassion and conservatism are mutually exclusive; it's impossible to be both without re-defining the words.

    Our goal must be to eliminate all suffering from the world.

    by Visceral on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 10:37:55 AM PDT

  •  sorry, but i dont think obama will help (2+ / 2-)

    obama has turned out to be a conservative. his actions show he agrees with current dadt, doma, abortion.

    •  Obama is no conservative (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueyedace2, csquared

      Stifle the cheap shots, thank you.

    •  Uprated for HR abuse (0+ / 0-)

      An opinion is expressed which the diarist happens to find objectionable, but that's an insufficient reason for HR.  Commentator spoke with calm civillity and backed up assertion with examples -- at least one of which, on DOMA, is pretty verifiable given the recent noxious brief by the DOJ.

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:09:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good diary. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DRo

    It seems strange that business interests would want more homeless on the streets. Business owners often complain that panhandlers hurt their business. I know it's not the exact same business interests, but this could be explained a bit further.

    Abolish the Homeland Scrutiny Department.

    by hoplite9 on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:34:22 PM PDT

    •  I believe the issue is more the social programs (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hoplite9

      of the 1970's and 1980's that the conservatives, including business owners objected too.  They resented paying taxes for those programs that the Reagan Administration referred to as a "welfare state."

      Businesses wanted the tax cuts. They likely did not believe at the time that the tax cuts would result in sending thousands of folks into the streets.  Business owners just wanted to keep their money.  

      Until the Reagan Administration homelessness was not an epidemic like it is today.  

  •  Texas wait for food stamps is now Four Months (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Libby Shaw

    In Houston the wait for an interview is four months. I contacted them today about a renewal that should have been processed in June and was told the first interview would be September.

    Besides the hardship created by this, I believe Texas undermines the efforts of the new legislation that is supposed to help.  I can't understand how they can get by so flagrently violating the law. According to what I have found researching, they are required to process applications and renewals within one month.  They just cavilierly say, "We're busy" .

    Also note that Perry turned down the stimulus to help the unemployed.

    If anyone nows how to get help on the FS issue I would be interested.  I think there should be a class action lawsuit, but don't know how to proceede.

    •  This is unacceptable (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DRo

      I would contact the media about this - an investigative reporter who is not afraid of those whose feathers he/she ruffles.  Wayne Dolcefino of Channel 13 News comes to mind.  I think every fat cat and evil doer in Houston is afraid of him.  

      http://abclocal.go.com/...

      Next I'd contact your state rep and raise bloody hell over this.  Then I'd find out what state/federal agency oversees FS and rip them new ones.  Tell them they are heartless and inhumane.  People can starve to death in four months.  Do they care?  

      I'd also contact Lisa Falkenberg of the Houston Chronicle.  She does an excellent job in political reporting and addressing critical issues in Houston.  Lisa is usually demonized by the right, by the way, and she's not afraid to take them on.

      You could also write a letter to the editor of the Houston Chronicle.  If your letter gets published it will embarrass the living daylights out of the FS folks.  Check the Chronicle's on line site to find the form to email.  

      Finally, I'd write a diary about this and post it up over at Texas Kaos and The Burnt Orange Report.

      Expose them for what they are - heartless bastards.

      •  Thanks for the info. (0+ / 0-)

        Here’s what I have done, so far.

        With multiple efforts I have spoken to a supervisor at the Telephone Rd office twice. (I tried the main number many times, but they do not answer.  I had a supervisor’s name and number in notes from a previous problem with the agency and called her)...1. Monday, I got her on the phone but had no promised return call, 2. Second try, no answer, got answering machine, left message but got no return call, 3. Thursday, spoke with her once more and got the "September timeframe" and another promise to call me back, unfulfilled.

        Wrote an email to the Houston chapter of ACLU, asking if they could help.

        Emailed  USDA asking for help.

        Called my State Senator’s office.  They were very helpful the last time I had a problem, and got action on my case.(That was January, when they didn’t process my December renewal claiming problems from IKE). I’m confidant of a return call from them.

        However, I feel there is a problem far greater than my case and wish someone would help the many others. Although it is a Federal program, it is administered by the State.  And they always have some excuse. There must be thousands who go through this without the savvy to do anything about it.  It is my understanding that HHS are required to process and issue these payments within one month, at most. They seem to thumb their nose at applicants. I have even mailed them Certified letters and never received a response!

        I see info that you are a NYC native.  I lived there most of my life and am a new kid on the block here in Houston. So, your information is very helpful. Sure miss NY!  I’m going to consider your other suggestions, but I don’t want personal publicity as all the right-wingers intimidate me.  (I’m the one in the little car with all the big pick-ups and SUVs and I live alone). I just read some comments from one of  Lisa’s columns. You really have to have thick skin when you are so outnumbered!

        Thanks again.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site