The Affordable Housing Crisis

    The precious few federal programs that provide rental assistance to the nation’s poorest and most vulnerable families are already under-financed. These programs provide decent housing for about only a quarter of the low-income families who qualify for them. And with nearly nine million households teetering on the verge of homelessness, the country clearly needs more support for affordable housing, not less...

    Congress has not treated these housing programs kindly in recent years. Between 2010 and 2012, financing fell by about $2.5 billion, or nearly 6 percent, although some of this was mitigated by one-time measures, like spending from reserves. President Obama’s budget for the 2013 fiscal year is not much of an improvement; given inflation, Congress would have to increase appropriations just to keep treading water, when, in fact, what the poor in this country need is a significant jump.

    The administration obviously needs to do better. The number of families eligible for this program has grown significantly since the start of the recession. Last year, for example, 8.5 million very-low-income families without housing assistance paid more than half their incomes for housing — an increase of 43 percent from 2007...

    [The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities] estimates that eligible families would end up paying about only 30 percent of incomes on housing, and that even a modest renters’ credit capped at $5 billion would lift 250,000 renters out of poverty, help 1.2 million of the lowest income renters and cut the number of poor households that spend more than half their incomes on rent by 700,000. That proposal deserves a serious reading.

   This is part of an opinion article which was published December 4th through the New York Times. The author claims that the government needs to give more money to poor families. He seems to care about the poverty-stricken people of America who are struggling to support their families. I can understand that, but I have a serious problem with what he is asking.

   Why should the government GIVE away money to people? Last time I checked, the government didn't owe the people of America anything, though they were in trillions of dollars of debt to other countries. I can understand wanting to give the "poor" a boost, but wouldn't it be more helpful to give them jobs to stimulate the economy and a steady income than simply handing them money, which they will spend and then need more of? Besides, if government simply gives them money, they become dependent on the government, which completely ruins the idea of freedom and independence. If the government pays for your food and housing, they practically own you. If the government owns you, how are you free?

   Who is he defining as poor? He says these "very-low-income families... paid more than half their incomes for housing", but at least they have housing. What about the victims of hurricane Sandy? The states who have been hit by the storm are asking for tens of billions of dollars for repairs and clean up. Many of those people lost loved ones and property, not to mention businesses, etc.

   It's admirable that the author wants to help the poor, but I don't believe that is important enough to spend billions on at the moment. I am sure there are "very-low-income families" who have had hard lives and could use some help from the government, but regardless of the "43 percent increase" since "2007", there are no-where near as many "poor" as there was during the Great Depression, and the government did not get out of that by handing money to people, so they shouldn't be doing that now.