Dean, I consider myself a rightwing tight-fisted guy, and that's mostly the way I vote. But I think the Columbus program in finding individual-room housing for that 10% bottom end of the homeless is an excellent idea.

(It's not just charity; except that people like you and I, who live in the Great Lakes frost belt, are perfectly aware of what a frigid winter in Colubus OH can be like for anyone who has to wander the streets looking for shelter. And being jobless, homeless and suffering from alcoholism as well, ought not to be a sentence of death for anyone.)

When I was a kid of 15 going on 16, 54 winters ago, my father had lost all his money and he and my mother were trying to put their lives back together. So I was living dirt poor in Chicago, and working setting pins in bowling alleys in order to get the money for transportation to and from high school and to buy hot lunches. There I met some of the true underclass of postwar American society. Not a few of them were World War II combat veterans who had not re-adjusted to civilian life and who lived out of a bottle. Nobody gave a damn if these people lived or died. My father and mother did in fact rebuild their lives and we all got together again, for keeps. But I never forgot that particular Chicago winter and I never forgot those otherwise forgotten men.

I can clearly see from the CSM article that many a hardcore homeless man or woman, if given a clean private place he or she might call their own, will re-acquire the spark of life neaded begin living like a normal member of American society once again. Some of them will in fact seek and even find regular employment and will also re-acquire the self-respect to become part of their own families once again. And wonder of wonders, all of this is what helps bring people into the great American middle class. But first, you need a home.

So I don't call this charity at all. I call it a simple investment in the most unfortunate ranks of Americans. An investment that will be repaid many times over by the reduction in the social costs of shoveling these people around from place to place in various NIMBY-based schemes which usually characterize public policy. So thanks for some common sense, Columbus.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

If you have not already come across them yet, I would suggest that you and others are interested in these matters visit and give a good long read to the following:

The Homeless Guy:
http://thehomelessguy.net

The thoughts and opinions of a homeless girl:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/being_homeless/
--(she has just because housed actually)

Vermont Homeless Journal (VHJ) Essays:
http://vhj-essays.blogspot.com/

Williamsburg's Homeless & Indigent:
http://thehomelessinwilliamsburg.blogspot.com/
--(this blog also includes some good commentary and articles as well)

Morgan W. Brown
Norsehorse's Home Turf:
http://nht.blogspot.com
Montpelier, Vermont

Being a hard assed conservative, I thought I'd put in my $0.02. I don't mind sending in tax dollars to help the truly needy. Nobody deserves to die of exposure or starvation.

And Dean, that is more of a moral argument to me. Operating under your statement that the chronically homeless are largely mentally ill and substance dependent, my self-interest says that their existence is a threat to my property and well being. It's my better nature that will send my money.

I know that there are actually a number of right-wingers who believe that government programs to help the truly needy are wise and moral things to do.

But there are any number of right-wingers--I've certainly met enough of them--who angrily suggest that they have no obligation whatsoever to "give money to bums who take no responsibility for their own lives," broadly generalizing about the homeless population.

Such people often have broadly reasonable arguments: that some people who are permanently homeless are genuine screwups, that there is a real need to hold people accountable for their own actions, that there is a genuine limit to how much "society" should take responsibility for any individual's welfare.

I merely note, once again, that those on the left who feel an acute need to help the needy really need to be doing a better job of explaining, in fairly concrete numbers, why their ideas aren't just "nice" ideas or "compassionate" ideas or "caring" ideas, but also pragmatic ideas and affordable ideas.

When the left bloviates about nasty mean-spirited closed-minded right-wingers who want to throw widows and orphans into the snow, they lose their arguments pretty much on the spot. They need to learn this lesson, and not enough of them do.

I've worked in both a homeless shelter and a jail. The populations are eerily similar.

While I understand that people get angry that drug addicts and the mentally ill are a drain on society -- and that drug-addicted people, by choosing to take drugs, did bring their problems upon themselves -- I think the moral argument you're making is somewhat beside the point in terms of public policy. Do we or do we not want people sleeping on the street, panhandling consumers in urban markets, and creating long-term correctional and healthcare costs in the process? I'd gladly pay more taxes out of my own pocket to make sure that the chronically-homeless can be housed and their chronic healthcare and mental issues addressed. Either we do it proactively, or we do it with the prison system. Having seen plenty of correctional budgets, I can tell you that the proactive method is cheaper.

But money alone isn't the answer. We need to reform laws pertaining to "vagrancy" and "loitering", we need to change law pertaining to the "right" of the mentally-ill to refuse medication that would allow them to function in society, and we need to more aggressively educate the public on why it's such an awful idea to give money to panhandlers.

Of course, people who live in suburban and rural areas don't aren't confronted by the chronically homeless the way that urban residents are, and they might think, "Why should we care if those crackheads ruin their lives? Why should we pay for their mistakes?"

If you're more interested in holding people accountable for their failings than alleviating suffering and social costs (and in my opinion, failings are their own punishment and require no further sanction), then my line of argument won't matter.

It's cheaper to house, feed and treat them than it is to manage them on the streets and with the revolving door of the jail. It's that simple.

I'm wondering if our results aren't skewed by our points of view. I come from conservative part of the country (KS) and I haven't met any conservatives that are willing to 'throw widows and orphans into the snow'.

We are fairly fed up that too much of the money seems to be used to 'level the standard of living'. Rob from the rich and give to the poor, socialism.

I've seen a lot of conservatives employ the slippery slope argument, but none who object to helping the truly needy. I think if you want to address us conservatives, integrate work ethic into your arguments.

A big help in this area would be the acknowledgement that the mentally ill or addicted homeless are not really able to get off the streets on their own. Their capabilities have been damaged by their condition, and so they could use a little help.

At the same time we need to stop thinking of mental illness as being something one can overcome on one's own. I have clinical depression. It took an intervention to get me off the street and back to being a (more or less) productive member of society.

Being ill is not a right, it is an imposition. An imposition on the individual and upon society. Quite often the afflicted are not competent to handle their own affairs and need treatment, even when they don't want it. Mental illness and addiction should be treated as equivalent to a case of drug resistant tuberculosis, and handled accordingly. Which means involuntary hospitalization even when the subject is not an immediate threat to himself or to others.

When a person is unable to provide for his own needs then it is up to society to intervene until such time as the subject can handle his own affairs. If the subject should prove to be incapable of handling his own affairs permanently, then he must be put into a permanent supervised situation.

BTW, this would also apply to folks with serious heart conditions, serious cases of pneumonia, etc. The only time a person would be able to decline medical treatment would be in those cases where medical treatment would make no difference and the subject was dying. In which case the patient would be made comfortable and allowed to 'slip away'.

I know some civil libertarians will disagree, but I've been on the other side of the gap. Sometimes you have to deny some people their liberty until they either show they can handle freedom, or it becomes clear they will never be able to handle their own affairs.

yet another blog worth checking out concerning these matters is:

Homeless & Disabled in Alabama:
http://homelessalabamian.blogspot.com/

to alan and john,

i mostly agree with what you're saying, that many mentally ill people simply do not realize the problem, or refuse drugs or therapy on ill-considered reasoning. but, in an age when pharmeceutical companies are doing the best they can to shove drugs we don't need down our throats, there is a need to be cautious when talking about involuntary hospitalization. i have no qualms about forcing a schizophrenic or suicidally depressed individual to enter into some therapy, and perhaps be prescribed some mind-balancing drugs, but there should also be limits. for example, one of the uses of Paxil is to help cure "shyness," or so claims the commercials. now, paxil may be a useful drug for people who take it, but we should be wary of a law which may make simple, personality-related issues such as shyness or temporary sadness (we all go through depressing periods without being chronically depressed) "illegal" in the sense that we would be forced against our wills to take medication to "correct" these "defects." maybe i'm overreacting, but i think that before we talk about mandated treatments we give these sorts of thoughts careful consideration.

and to dean's argument about liberals needing to rely on appeals to the conservative's pocketbooks, i think it's a poor argument. i think the general concensus among humans is that no one should be left "out in the cold," no matter how little they've done to deserve our support. that goes for liberals and conservatives. i think the real issue here is the difference of opinion on how that is best accomplished. conservatives i think argue on behalf of privately funded charitable institutions. basically relying on the goodwill of their fellow man. left-wingers take the more pragmatic approach of not leaving it up to the individual to decide, but rather forcing them into charity through tax-funded social programs. if you look at the argument this way, which side is betting on human nature, and which is betting against it?

My issue with government aid programs like these stems, not from a desire to see people suffering, but from a dislike and mistrust of the government. Let me give you a quick example:

A woman walked into my church a while ago and pulled aside our youth pastor and explained that she needed a little bit of money to buy groceries. He came and asked us college students if we could contribute, assuring us that this women he does, in fact, know very well and can be trusted to use the money wisely. We scrounged around in our pockets and found about $100 to give to the woman.

Here's how I believe that act of charity is superior to anything the US government could think up:

1. It's more efficient. For every dollar I pay in taxes, 38 cents goes to pay the salaries of the bureaucrats that handle my money. So, in effect, by helping this women individually we gave her $100 but if the government had taken $100 from us to give to her, she would have only ended up with $68.

2. We could be sure that our money was going to a good cause - this woman wouldn't use the money to buy drugs, etc. I have several relatives on Welfare who have nice clothes, cell phones, a nice apartment, etc. and really don't need government. But they managed to get into the system because they managed to deceive some faceless social worker who knew nothing about them into giving them the money. We knew this woman personally.

3. It places the responsibility for helping the poor upon the average American. No longer is "the government" responsible for waving its magic wand and solving the problem (hah!) but you and I.

4. It upholds our right to our own money. Nothing ticks me off like wealth redistribution programs. Nothing! We could have chosen not to give to this woman, and no one would have, say, fined us and thrown us in jail. If you're forced to give money, is it really charity?

Given the choice to give money either to a government-sponsored charity or a private one, I'd almost always choose the private one.

Kacie,

I thought "WE" were the government. You know, the whole "by the people, for the people" stuff. When the right cries "wealth redistribution" I have to chuckle because no one benefits more from government funding and services than the wealthy therefore taxing the wealthy at a higher percentage is appropriate. Don't believe me, ask Bill Gates, ask Robert Kraft, hell, ask Alan Greenspan or ask any economist. Most of them will tell you the same. A progressive tax system is not unfair wealth redistribution. The choice is clear, pay taxes and fund education and job training now or pay later when we have no choice but to build prisons.

But please don't give me the argument that private organizations are more responsible than the government when it comes to money. Think of all the financial scandals concerning the Southern Baptist Church recently, or for that matter the Catholic Church. Yes, these groups do significant positive work in the community, but they are far from flawless.

The important thing isn't whether this program is tax funded or privately funded right now. The important thing is if this program actually works to convert it to entirely private funding. The arguments for better oversight and more efficiency are all well and good but like it or not, government programs will sometimes be good ideas despite the negative effects of how they are funded. Converting to private funding is the key.

Here's a link to a (privately run) homeless program in Denver that actually has a record of getting chronically homeless off the street. The man who runs it used to be homeless himself.

http://step13.org/

zach: congratulations, you've made Dean's point. First your only argument is that "we really should." Then, the only basis for your argument is "I think so."

This is not a valid argument. As should be apparent here, many people have many opinions. The problem is to provide a compelling argument to support one's opinion.

Tim, as usual, you get it backwards. :)

No, "we," as in the citizens of the United States, are not the government. We delegated that part of our sovreignty to local, state, and Federal government.

Also, "we" do not gather, allocate, then disburse monies on the public's behalf. Bureacrats do that, and Kacie's point is that this is not an efficient process.

If you had just laid off the leftist "corporate fat cats" cant, you might have provided a more compelling argument. Which reminds me: (chucking aside) you never explained just how higher-income Americans benefit more from government services than do lower-income Americans?

Some useful arguments you may wish to employ in the future:

Yes, Kacie, in a perfect world there would be no need for government programs, but the late 19th/early 20th century provided many historical examples of the principle that one of the freedoms that a lassiez-faire society enjoys is the freedom to starve. The Great Depression, for instance.

Many political scientists agree that one good way to determine just what government should be responsible for is the princple that it should handle those issues which private individuals won't (or shouldn't) be responsible for. Examples include public utilities that need some form of local monopoly to be efficient, the local fire and police departments, and armed forces. Sometimes the requirement is not funding, but regulation, such as the transparency that the SEC provides for the stock market. Note that while we have seen some sharp falls in the past 60 years, none of them have had the impact of 1929.

Actually I was going to be a bit harder on you, but the post following yours is ironically opposite to yours. Even I don't think that everything should be privatized. Imagine what the US Army would be like if MicroSoft were in charge: the "Blue Screen of Death" would take on a whole new meaning! Not to mention online phone support...

But Kacie's objection about bureaucratic ineffciency still holds true. So what do we do? I'm sure from your own personal experience you would agree that the guy on the spot frequently has a better idea of what's needed than somebody two or three echelons up the food chain, yes?

This is the solution: local government. Why send money from the county up to state, which gets kicked up to federal, only to be bounced right back down again, with that 38% loss folded in? Let's leave the money at the city or county level, and allow the folks who know what's needed take care of it.

Such a solution addresses the problem of bureaucratic inefficiency, by minimizing paperwork, as well as private inequity.

A lot of good points made by all and sundry here...

A true conservative has no problem with a decent provision for the poor...the real difference comes in when you come across the intractable poor: those poor who make a nusiance out of themselves and wont voluntarily avail themselves of the generous provision society has made for them.

No person has a right to loiter endlessly - nor does anyone have a right to erect shanty's on public or private property without a permit - nor does anyone have the right to litter (littering including defecating and urinating in public, in this instance). If a person will not, after given many chances to voluntarily avail themselves of the resources provided, get themselves together and get off the streets, then they must be compelled off the streets - and incarcerated, gently, until such time as they are able to take care of themselves without winding back up on the streets.

Some months ago, I was in Los Angeles doing some shopping in downtown...an area well past its prime, but with excellent bargains; turning a corner from the shopping area, I came across the most blighted and disgusting urban area I've ever seen - and I've been in the Third World. Literally scores of people, filthy and idle, lying about totally destroying any prospect of revitalising that area of town; its unfair to those people and its unfair to the property owners of that area and its unfair to the general populace that such a thing be allowed to continue.

I am not familiar with other cities, only Philadelphia. There the homeless problem went up exponentially with the shutting down of Byberry Hospital, a large mental institution. They tried to mainstream these patients, which in some cases was possible, but not in the way they did it. Some patients were given places to live, and told to take this or that medicine every day. Of course, they didn't take it for long. Expecting these patients to remember such things on their own? Having had a couple of relatives who worked there, I discovered that we can say for sure that some of those homeless people in downtown Philly used to be at Byberry. Some people on their own maybe homeless, but when it is due to real mental illness, yes, the state should have the facilities to take care of them. I despise the nanny state, and the government wiping our noses for us, but many of these literally cannot take care of themselves on their own. Even the liberal social workers at Byberry that we knew realized that these patients weren't being mainstreamed, they were being abandoned. Our homeless problem could be reduced dramatically (at least in Philly) if our mental health facilities were up to par. Even a libertarian can understand the role of the state where the homeless in question are concerned.

From my personal experiences in being homeless (once for almost 5 years while single in the mid-90's, once for almost a year with my now-wife), I think that personal space is perhaps the most important part of the transition back to society. And it takes a while to decompress and get back in the swing of things.

But in both instances, that was proceeded by work, by getting back to work and finding someone to co-sign that first apartment.

And to work, you need some very simple things that are very hard for the homeless to get. Regular laundry and showers, access to a voicemail pager for job application, clothes that are minimally decent, all of your paperwork in order.

Part of the trouble I see with too many homeless programs is that they can't take the time to tailor their help for each individual, and fall into a dependency relationship with their clients. Things end up being too structured and bureaucratic, and you either fit their cookie-cutter mold of who they are there to help and adhere to maddening regulations, or get nothing.

And too many (Glide Church in SF comes to mind) ARE just excuses to siphon money into the coffers of non-profits with little actual regard for those they are 'helping', so I'm truly torn over the private/public funding question.

But John is ultimately right, ANYTHING is cheaper than jail...

Why do you call it a "better" nature?
My job is to protect my family and by extention my community (because that is where my family lives), my state , my country, my world.

Altrusim comes from envisioning the consequences to ones genes of actions which may affect them in the near or far future.

Thoughtful disagreements of where those consequences lead are only "better" or "worse" depending on the accuracy of results. History is often a valuable (though not infallable) guide.

casey,

i think you either didn't read my post, or didn't process it the right way. i wasn't trying to make an argument, or a case for my position. we *all* pretty much hold the same position here, which is that the homeless or poor (or at the very least a large subsection of them) are in need of society's help. so i don't really see where you're coming from on the "we really should" or "i think so" angles. i was simply stating what, to my mind, is the fact that conservatives and liberals aren't arguing over what should be done, but (as is so often the case) the particulars of how best to do it. nor was i making a judgement call about which one of those might be better or worse (my personal opinion is a combination of the two: government programs can shell out the big bucks, while independent programs can provide the personal, tailored support). so next time, before you start talking down from on high to people here (btw, i should thank you for Kacie for your benevolence in not "coming down harder"), you should make it a point to really understand what people are trying to say before refuting it.

and, while on the subject of refuting, i should point out the flaw in your own argument, which is that if local governments were to handle their own homelessness/poor problem, then they would only be able to use locally collected funds. and, as we all know, typically the amount of taxes collected is inversely proportional to the number of poor/homeless in your community. so in that situation, the local governments with the largest poor population would also likely be the worst equipped to handle the situation. (the exceptions to this are cities, since they have the poorest and richest elements of society together, typically, but poverty and homelessness are by no means an urban-only problem, and not every city has a lot of rich folk).

zach,

Good points - but the arguments against large-scale government involvement are huge. Just to take an example - if you make a government program designed to help the poor, what you generally get is a program which continually redefines what "poor" is in order to justify not only its existence, but its expansion. I believe there is a federal role; but only in providing money - how its to be used, this must be taken entirely out of any government-paid bureaucrats hands. Generally, I'm in favor of a sort of supreme council on dispensing the charity - make it up of the heads of several large religious orders plus a couple of well-known lay philanthropists and allow them wide lattitude in giving grants to local groups helping the poor...still not perfect, but the best that can be, I think.

zach: ok, I did go through that pretty quick. Sorry about that.

I'm not going to apologize for saying that I didn't think you had an argument. As for "talking down to you," I can just hurl insults, if you prefer. :)

Could you do me a favor? Could you please try using capitalization? Trying to read all lower-case type makes it a lot harder to process the information, especially when someone uses a few large paragraphs to write. It all runs together.

And if you find flaws in any argument, feel free to point them out! That's the whole point of these discussions, no? But I don't think you're on very strong ground here.

First, I'm not sure that we all know that "typically the amount of taxes collected is inversely proportional to the number of poor/homeless in your community." So you're saying that Los Angeles (to use Mark's example) takes in hardly any taxes? Lord knows they have enough homeless out there. Are you saying that one of the biggest cities in the country takes in less taxes than (say) Cincinnati?

I'd love to see some numbers to back that up.

Even given that, I never said it should be strictly local-only, only that local direction was the optimal solution. If a particular city or county need extra help, then it would not be unreasonable to ask for a little extra money from the state.

Of course, the trick is to limit such aid to "a little extra."

But, hey, nice try. Keep on pluggin'. :)

Casey,

Without going into too much detail concerning how the wealthy benefit more from tax dollars than the middle-class check out this:

William Gates Sr. writes:

"Like the "great man" theory of history, our dominant "great man" theory of wealth creation borders on mythology. Such folklore fills the pages of business magazines. In a recent interview, one chief of a global corporation was asked to justify his enormous compensation package. He responded, "I created over $300 billion in shareholder value last year, so I deserve to be greatly rewarded." The operative word here is "I." There was no mention of the share of wealth created by the company's other 180,000 employees. From this sort of thinking, it is a short distance to, "It's all mine" and, "Government has no business taking any part of it."

There is no question that some people accumulate great wealth through hard work, intelligence, creativity, and sacrifice. Individuals do make a difference, and it is important to recognize individual achievement. Yet it is equally important to acknowledge the influence of other factors, such as luck, privilege, other people's efforts, and society's investment in the creation of individual wealth.

Consider the many components of the social framework that enable great wealth to be built in the United States. Among them are a patent system, enforceable contracts, open courts, property ownership records, protection against crime and external threats, and public education. Even the stock market is a form of socially created wealth that provides liquidity to enterprises. David Blitzer, the chief investment strategist at Standard and Poors, recently wrote, "Financial markets are as much a social contract as is democratic government." When faith in this social system is shaken, as it has been by recent breaches of trust, we see how quickly individual wealth evaporates. "

Of course charitable organizations are needed and valued by society, but sometimes the government can lend a hand.

For more on supporting progressive taxes, check out the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation - one of the most generous private organizations in our country.

I'm a selfish, tight-fisted conservative. It all depends on what you mean by "my better nature". If I'm not in an absolutely crummy mood (and maybe even if I am) and you appeal to my kindness, my generosity, say "please" and "thank you, kind sir, bless your heart", then I'll gladly give as much as I can afford at the time.
But if you try to appeal to _guilt_, "it's my _right_, I'm _entitled_ to it, you _owe_ me!", or "that's not enough, you must give _more_, you must give till it _hurts_!", or "your action has no moral value because you did it from a _selfish_ motive" (Immanuel Kant), why then, screw you, you get nothing at all from me.

I'm liberal or pragmatic enough to concede that the New Deal was necessary for its time (the Great Depression), but my main worry about the welfare state is that what the government subsidizes it likes to control. Already, we constantly hear arguments that, since government subsidizes health care, it should regulate personal behavior it deems "unhealthy". Hence, calls for compulsory seat belts and compulsory motorcycle helmets, bans on smoking or on fatty foods. Gun banners use the "health" argument to promote their agenda (and, yes, of course guns are unhealthy to criminals, that's precisely the point!). And collectivists use AIDS as an argument to justify "sodomy" laws. Better no government at all than "sodomy" laws!

John,

It's cheaper to house, feed and treat them than it is to manage them on the streets and with the revolving door of the jail. It's that simple.

Not really THAT simple. For starters, you can't force them to accept help. A significant number of them won't take it.

Some of these people, primarily the mentally ill, need to be under lock and key.

I understand the argument that they have rights, and we can't lock them up without consent, I just disagree with it.

I just wanted to comment on the issue of locking up mentally ill people under lock and key.

As someone who is schizophrenic and currently homeless, I would not want to be locked up just to make society's life easier or more pleasant at my expense.

I do agree that very violent or criminal mentally ill people should be dealt with in such a manner as much as for their own safety as that as for others as well.

If you were to lock me you would demoralize me and take away my life. I would no longer be living just existing.

My illness and its severity comes and goes. There are weeks were I am very lucid and appear normal and intelligent and then there are others were I am delusional, paranoid, and very ill and can barely survive.

If you were to lock me up you would deprive me of those good weeks where I can actually live "life". I can read, browse the internet, and have thoughts, views, and opinions much as any other. I can have all the emotions and life experiences that most people take for granted during those times.

If we were to lock up someone like John Nash who had a "beautiful mind" despite his mental illness and many failings we would have lost much knowledge and the gifts the man could give us. Instead of thinking up brilliant theories and being in a stimilating environment such as a university. He would be wasting away his life in a mental hospital making finger paint portraits and undergoing a zombie inducing medication regimen and dubious shock therapy treatments.

It is a hard situation to deal with and the easy thing to do it just lock all of us up and quietly forget about it but you would lose many things that we can offer as well.

Ok, I found it.
http://www.tilrc.org/docs/housingstudy2.htm

This is a study comparing the cost of housing the mentally ill to leaving them to wander the streets, homeless. The costs are very similar.

In my opinion, neither Government nor private sector should be given the task of dealing with the homeless. Too many people within these kinds of employment are just out for themselves. Truly, the only ones that should be dealing with the homeless are those with purely altruistic intentions - those willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of others - the needs of the homeless, to repair the damaged lives of the homeless, requires that much.

Yet, because of the direction the world is heading, numbers of Mother Teresas and Father Strobels, and Simone Weils, and Dorothy Days are dwindling. Perhaps they should be put on the endangered species list, (as if that would really save them from destruction).

Jonathon,

I don't want you locked up.
I don't want you homeless.
I do want to spend money to help you get off the streets.
I do want you to be forced to take your medicine when you need it, for both your safety and my family's safety.

Some folks are very dangerous without meds and wonderful people with. I don't want them to have a choice about whether or not to take them. If John Nash was dangerous he could have destroyed another Nobel Prize winner, right? Princeton is lousy with them.

Right now we have overshot the mark with patient's rights, but I don't want to go back to the horrible torture houses we used to call asylums.

Yours,
Wince

A few ideas, in no particular order:

To a large degree, homelessness is an artifact of society's desire to raise living standards for all. A laudable goal, of course, but we made some judgement calls along the way that created the homeless problem we have today.

It is illegal to build truly cheap housing, since our building codes mandate a very expensive standard of construction. Public housing is routinely refused by the homeless, due to its squalor, but if society offerred quality housing to the poor, too many people would move in.

In many cases, homelessness is a lifestyle choice. Our concept of personal freedom does not allow us to lock up anyone who refuses to live up to societal norms. Many of these so-called crazy people nevertheless are sane enough to refuse to take their medicine.

If we are able to learn from experience, then it should be clear to all that government can not solve this problem. Government can not even make a go of gambling, without cheating on payouts. The payouts offerred by government lotteries and off track betting schemes are less than even the mafia could get away with.

We live in an immensely wealthy country. It thus should be clear that no amount of money will solve the homeless situation. We should not allow the bureaucrats and the single interests to manipulate the debate. They create more of the problem than they solve. But hey: everybody needs to make a living. And, with a 38% takeout, it is surely in their interest to make the problem appear as large as possible. And a credulous public is only too eager to believe itself at fault for the suffering of strangers.