Will Bush get credit for curtailing homelessness?
posted at 11:40 am on October 27, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
When George Bush won the 2000 election, many of us expected to hear a four- or eight-year litany of dire warnings about the homeless. We noticed that this particular story grew into a major national theme during the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations, but dropped off the radar screen during the Clinton administration — despite increasing numbers. The issue never really caught fire as a political issue during the last eight years, though, and McClatchy reports why:
So began the Bush administration’s radical, liberal — and successful — national campaign against chronic homelessness.
“Housing first,” it’s called. That’s to distinguish it from traditional programs that require longtime street people to undergo months of treatment and counseling before they’re deemed “housing ready.” Instead, the Bush administration offers them rent-free apartments up front.
New residents, if they choose, can start turning their lives around with the help of substance-abuse counselors, social workers, nurse practitioners, part-time psychiatrists and employment counselors. However, residents are referred to as “consumers,” and the choice is theirs. …
The “housing first” strategy gets much of the credit for a 30 percent decline in U.S. chronic homelessness from 2005 to 2007. The number fell from 176,000 to 124,000 people, according to the best available census of street people.
Homelessness got pushed off the front page for a number of reasons. The 9/11 attacks forced the nation to recognize that war had been declared against America for the previous decade, and we needed to start fighting our enemies. The resolution of the 12-year standoff in Iraq and its aftermath sucked up most of the rest of the political oxygen. But undoubtedly, the improvement in homelessness in the midst of the Bush administration also helped — by silencing the redistributionists and stealing one of their political trump cards.
Was this one of Bush’s more liberal policies? I’d say yes. By providing a housing solution free of charge, federal and state governments had to cough up a lot of money. As McClatchy notes, though, that saved money that would have gone to acute-rescue efforts like shelters and crisis treatment centers. Housing gave the previously homeless an opportunity to seek employment, creating a net revenue gain rather than a funding drain. Whether or not anyone wants to call it liberal, it certainly proved more cost effective than the other liberal plans in place during the previous generation.
McClatchy picks an interesting time to run this story. All during this election season, we keep hearing (from both sides) that the previous eight years have somehow gotten America off track. In fact, while the Bush years saw an expansion of the economy, the administration made unprecedented progress in using that expansion to significantly reduce one of the nagging social issues of our time. And all during that period, the people who screamed most about the issue during Republican administrations never bothered to give credit for Bush’s success.
Will the rest of the media report on this success? Or will they continue to ignore the sharp decline in the homelessness they used to highlight as a means to bash the GOP?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
He won’t get credit for this, just like he won’t get credit for the massive levels of aid his administration sends to Africa to fight AIDS and malaria.
Good post though, Ed. I had no idea this program was even in place. Liberal, yes, but there’s a lot about President Bush that’s liberal, or as he would call it, compassionate.
BadgerHawk on October 27, 2008 at 11:36 AM
NO
originalpechanga on October 27, 2008 at 11:36 AM
In a word? No.
Never credit, only blame.
Bob's Kid on October 27, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Bush only receives blame. In fact, that the problem has not been eradicated completely lies entirely at Bush’s feet.
EconomicNeocon on October 27, 2008 at 11:38 AM
No.
They will point back to the subprime “crisis” and say that more people are losing their homes which will further increase homelessness. (Had to use warped Dummycrat logic for that response)
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 27, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Of course not.
The credit decline will go to President Obama next year. Think I’m joking? Watch how in 2010 he starts taking credit for the stable democracy that Iraq has transformed into.
Rod on October 27, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Well, after this financial crisis, it just may rise up again…that is what the response would be.
His financial decisions have put millions at risk of losing their homes.
See how easy it is to be a liberal?
right2bright on October 27, 2008 at 11:40 AM
The media will wait until OFraud is President and suddenly stories will tell of his mere inaugguration fixing homelessness.
BKennedy on October 27, 2008 at 11:42 AM
“The credit for the decline … “
Rod on October 27, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Just like Bush’s real commitment to fighting AIDS and malaria in Africa, his real commitment to ending homelessness in America will never get the attention that it should.
This really started in the Reagan administration, though, with the introduction of housing vouchers and the combination of services for voucher recipients. The Bush 41 and Clinton administrations built on it. Liberals always wanted more billions for public housing projects, and that has proven to be a failed strategy.
rockmom on October 27, 2008 at 11:44 AM
LOL! Bush get credit for anything good…?
Can’t… stop… laughing…
Any good from the Bush administration (be it military success, AIDS funding, education spending, homeland security, or this) will be swiftly positioned in Hussein’s favor. Anything bad that happens after Hussein steals the presidency will be blamed on the past 8 years. Hussein’s sh*t will not stink.
I refuse to ever call Hussein my president. I believe if he wins, it will be because of the tens of millions of fraudulent ACORN votes and the hijacking of the mass media. He should therefore be called the “illegitimate president” (just as the left so relentlessly did for 8 years to Bush), and I will always only refer to him as Hussein.
ErinF on October 27, 2008 at 11:44 AM
This is a positive and laudable result.
That said, it was pointless to do anything in cooperation with the Democrats, while ignoring the conservative base. Both Bush and McCain are paying the price.
The benefits of bipartisanship were overrated, and still are.
Greg Toombs on October 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM
If they can tie it to subprime lending, I am sure he will get credit.
Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Using Bush and credit in the same sentence(in a good way) would never appear in any MSM. They have such hate and vitriol for him that they would rather he was dead and they even made a movie about it
ConservativePartyNow on October 27, 2008 at 11:46 AM
HAHA I was going to post exactly that.
bj1126 on October 27, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I meant to add:
There is no recognition, acknowledgment or credit of the successful policy, or for the Republican leaders, from the Democrats or their PR arm.
Greg Toombs on October 27, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Should Bush get credit for borrowing money to send to Afica? While his goal was laudable, I think he should get blame for presiding over eight years of reckless borrowing and spending. Some of that–due to 9-11–was beyond his control, but his reckless spending has extended far beyond security matters.
flyfisher on October 27, 2008 at 11:47 AM
He won’t get credit for curtailing homelessness, but when it homelessness rises in the next administration Bush will be blamed for it; along with all other problems the next administration has.
albill on October 27, 2008 at 11:48 AM
NO!
- Keeping us safe for 7.5 years shall not be discussed.
- Keeping our economy red hot and hopping with historically low unemployment UNTIL the dem’s took over in 2006, shall not be discussed.
- Significantly decreasing homelessness shall not be discussed.
- Decimating Al Qaeda shall not be discussed.
- Modernization of tools to keep us safe (terrorist eavesdropping, Dept of Homeland Security, FISA, etc.) shall not be discussed.
- Decrease of aids and increase of aids awareness and prevention on the African continent shall not be discussed.
- Appointing more minorities as judges and to cabinet positions more than any other previous administration based on the content of character rather then the color of their skin, shall not be discussed.
- Wiping the rise of jihadism off the map (at least while he was in office, BO will screw this all up if elected) shall not be discussed.
History will judge W much differently than the liberal press.
JustTruth101 on October 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Well, if ManlyRash is right, homelessness will remain ignored for another 4 years as well.
The press will want to wait until President McCain’s term is over before they start dishing out credit for ending homelessness. ;)
JadeNYU on October 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Look, liberal policies in and of themselves are not terrible. It’s just that in the case of many, MANY liberal policies, they do not work! If a liberal policy can be effective without costing the government an extraordinary amount of money, is constitutional, and benefits society, than these policies can be looked at, and in some cases, implemented.
Is this a liberal policy, yes. Does it seem to be working? Yes. Does this mean every liberal policy will? Not at all.
Do things that work. Don’t do things that have been proven not to. Simple.
Abby Adams on October 27, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Bush announced these figures in July, so, given that it’s 3 months later, I would suggest that the answer to your question is no, nobody gives a sh*t.
Dave Rywall on October 27, 2008 at 11:50 AM
I failed to answer the question at hand. Bush will get credit for the tent cities which, according to the media, are popping up around the country. Does anyone have a Bushville in their community?
flyfisher on October 27, 2008 at 11:51 AM
We can always count on you to cheer us up. Thanks for waking up today.
fourstringfuror on October 27, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Look, it’s simple.
Bush failed at everything and did nothing positive at all.
Riposte on October 27, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Obviously a rhetorical question, since we all know the answer…
tom on October 27, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Instead of whining that the media does not talk about it - WE SHOULD!
Programs that aim to cut off the problem at the source (preventive) are almost ALWAYS more effective.
A Axe on October 27, 2008 at 11:53 AM
We can always count on you to cheer us up. Thanks for waking up today.
fourstringfuror on October 27, 2008 at 11:52 AM
———-
Hey - just telling it like it is. It was covered a bit in the press back in July but found no traction.
But of course, helping the homeless is socialist.
Dave Rywall on October 27, 2008 at 11:55 AM
That assumes there will be a President Obama. I don’t think so.
Otherwise, though, right on target. Observe how Clinton took credit for the economic recovery that was already underway as he was running against the “worst economy in 50 years.” (Echoes of the present: that whopper was just accepted as true by the media, when it should have been mocked as the ridiculous statement it was.) And of course, how Clinton took credit for welfare reform he kept trying to kill, because he finally gave up and signed it the third time around.
tom on October 27, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Bush will not get credit for much until a generation of journalists arrive who are indifferent to Bush and can weigh his decisions objectively.
Tacitus_SGL on October 27, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Good point. For once.
tom on October 27, 2008 at 11:59 AM
And now 0bama wants to take that away.
4shoes on October 27, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Credit cannot be applied to Bush, that’s an undefined operation. And it’s actually a much smaller problem than I would have thought based on all the press sob stories over the years. 124,000 out of a population of over 300,000,000 is about 0.0004% of the population. I would have thought it was at least 0.5% based on all the attention it gets. Could that possibly be true? Someone please check my math, my calculator rolled over into scientific notation with this one.
DarkCurrent on October 27, 2008 at 12:01 PM
It’s comedy gold like this that keeps me from putting a bullet in my brain.
LimeyGeek on October 27, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Credit cannot be applied to Bush, that’s an undefined operation. And it’s actually a much smaller problem than I would have thought based on all the press sob stories over the years. 124,000 out of a population of over 300,000,000 is about 0.0004% of the population. I would have thought it was at least 0.5% based on all the attention it gets. Could that possibly be true? Someone please check my math, my calculator rolled over into scientific notation with this one.
DarkCurrent on October 27, 2008 at 12:01 PM
——–
They are very careful to call it “chronic homelessness”.
The figures for people who use shelters and the like here and there are much much higher in the millions.
Dave Rywall on October 27, 2008 at 12:03 PM
If Bush eliminated homelessness, the Democrats would complain that there aren’t enough people sleeping on sewer grates.
Glenn Jericho on October 27, 2008 at 12:05 PM
I
blamecredit global warming.Brat on October 27, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Millions at any one time, or millions cumulatively over some period of time?
DarkCurrent on October 27, 2008 at 12:10 PM
If they mention it at all, it’ll go something like:
“124,000 Americans still languish in homelessness and poverty after Bush’s eight years in ofice. A spokesman from the Obama campaign has attributed this to ‘a wasteful war in the Middle-East and the Bush administration’s general mismanagement of the economy.’ Minorities, especially women and children, are the hardest hit by the failure to address this issue in a meaningful way.”
Now I’m ready for my job at the NYT!
TMK on October 27, 2008 at 12:13 PM
No. The media will find some homeless family destitute because of Bush’s economic crisis.
Valiant on October 27, 2008 at 12:14 PM
‘Course not.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 27, 2008 at 12:15 PM
It’s only socialist if you forcibly take resources from others to do it. Helping the homeless through your own contribution is charity.
DarkCurrent on October 27, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Dave, they call it chronic homelessness not as a rhetorical dodge but as a means of characterizing a distinct phenomenon. People who work in the area of homelessness know exactly why this is done. Don’t make yourself look foolish trying to be cute.
The data are not great at any rate, since there are problems projecting from the PIT counts and since HUD HMIS data aren’t projectable at all (communities with sufficient HMIS bed coverage to report HMIS case data into HUD’s Annual Homeless Assessment Report are not representative).
Ed, the timing isn’t good here since we’re now seeing spikes in shelter use, bed shortfalls and we’re turning to really inefficient means of sheltering people as a result. I’m sure there will be a backlash against the shelter closings that accompanied the emphasis on transitional and permanent housing.
There’s still time to blame Bush, in other words.
DrSteve on October 27, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Arf arf arf
LimeyGeek on October 27, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Millions at any one time, or millions cumulatively over some period of time?
DarkCurrent on October 27, 2008 at 12:10 PM
——-
Ehhh, kind of both.
“The Department of Housing and Urban Development collects the statistics as part of its Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. Nationally, the total number of homeless people counted on a single night in January — the measure used to count homeless families on the streets and in shelters — dropped to 666,295 in 2007, from 754,147 in 2005.”
Sometimes they count single nights as an indicator, sometimes they total weeks or months, since it’s not always (but mostly) the same people who make use of the shelters.
Dave Rywall on October 27, 2008 at 12:19 PM
We could close all the shelters in the depths of winter. That might help.
LimeyGeek on October 27, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Sadly, thanks to the media and the Dems, the only thing Bush will get credit for is leaving office. Last night my wife and I were watching a documentary on Bush and the image of those planes slamming into the WTC made me thankful we have had him at the helm these last 8 years.
Republican on October 27, 2008 at 12:24 PM
This is the most recent HUD Report.
Lest people want to throw stones about Bush Administration numbers, it’s prepared by a contractor (Abt Associates) with some of the smartest housing economists around, and whose employees give to Democrats over Republicans by about 10:1.
DrSteve on October 27, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Brat on October 27, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Nah. The headline will be “Bush leaves Office, Stink remains”
LimeyGeek on October 27, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Even the 666K figure only adds up to 0.002% of the population. A little useful foreign aid from Canada and our problem would be solved!
DarkCurrent on October 27, 2008 at 12:30 PM
If the democrats among us would each adopt one homeless wretch, they could become the saviours of America.
But they kinda smell and don’t match the Ikea accents.
LimeyGeek on October 27, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Media is not going to report anything good from Bush so no he is not going to take credit for reducing the homelessness. But I agree that the history is going to be much more nuanced with him. But will take about 20-25 years to start judging him more appropiate.
clemycali on October 27, 2008 at 12:38 PM
if obama wins, I think we’ll be seeing that number quite a bit…
right4life on October 27, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I’m sure the Democrats thought of that, but there aren’t enough homeless to go around. Only 1 Democrat in thousands could adopt their own. However, if every Democrat donated $10 a month each of the homeless could receive about $2,000. (I’m double-counting the homeless who are Democrats, but still close I think)
DarkCurrent on October 27, 2008 at 12:41 PM
I thought W’s plan for the homeless was to just have National Guard troops shoot them? Isn’t that what the fringe Left is saying?
rbj on October 27, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Perhaps some sort of bum-timeshare tax incentive would do the trick?
LimeyGeek on October 27, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I think I see a contradiction here…
DarkCurrent on October 27, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Or, they could cut out the middleman, and just hand out booze from the backs of trucks.
Vashta.Nerada on October 27, 2008 at 12:50 PM
A liberal program that costs less than the liberal program it replaces is a microscopic move to the right.
DFCtomm on October 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM
That would only accomplish a swell in the number of homeless, but Democrats don’t understand that.
DFCtomm on October 27, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Though I do have to kind of laugh that one of the few good things Bush has done was a liberal move :)
A Axe on October 27, 2008 at 12:57 PM
But America is our home, so surely there are no truly ‘homeless’ people?
Problem solved!
LimeyGeek on October 27, 2008 at 12:59 PM
I think they’d finally tune in on a clue if they were funding it out of their own pockets for once.
DarkCurrent on October 27, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Look at what all the mindless, mob-mentality Bush-bashing has brought to us: Obama, elected because “we don’t need another four years of Bush”.
Reap it, lemmings!
jay12 on October 27, 2008 at 1:28 PM
If you can spend less and get better results, it isn’t liberal. Remember, for liberals it’s the spending that counts, not the results. If you spend more, you must be doing more.
Kafir on October 27, 2008 at 1:45 PM
One point that I just thought of:
The media still hasn’t given Bush credit for winning the election - what are the chances that they’ll give him credit for anything positive that came out of his administration?
Tacitus_SGL on October 27, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Yes, it’s disheartening. Understand, though, that the long-standing free-market ideological disposition of economists is actually counter to their class interests. The more interventions, policies, and plans you have the more economists you need. The economists employed by beltway bandits (like me) have largely figured that out.
Obama makes me ill but he’s going to be good for my top line. Don’t misunderstand me though, I’m a broken glass Republican this year!!
DrSteve on October 27, 2008 at 2:41 PM