Federal Aid for Housing takes a wrong turn

The New York Times today carried an interesting article on housing aid for the poor. The Bush administration has proposed new guidelines for determining this aid. A three letter change in the directive - from "not more than $50 a month" is to be changed to "at least $50 a month, under Bush's plan. This proposal, they say, is to promote work by people who live in federally subsidized housing.

However, several other articles of late have been printed - among them articles about the jobless rate. And that downward shift indicates other things. The minimum wage places, like Burger King, are now seeing applicants from other areas of society who were the usual hires- the high school kids, the drop outs, the immigrants. Now they're seeing apllicants who are on a downward swing because they haven't been able to get jobs elsewhere, and are overqualified, but jobless.

These very people who can't afford housing but are getting aid are the ones who will be forced out. Sort of like when Reagan said the homeless are that way because they choose to be.

Maybe the term "entitlements" has been the wrong word choice. If we are to believe in compassionate conservatism, maybe words like "help pur fellow men to dignity" would be better?


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/politics/11HOUS.html