Are deficit worries slowing funding of
Obama’s homeless programs?
Shira Poliak in a post in The Hill, an influential blog in Washington entitled Deficit worries slow funding of Obama homeless programs, stated what should be obvious: “Lawmakers are skittish about funding new programs to meet President Obama’s ambitious goal of ending homelessness for families, children and veterans in the next decade.”
As she also observed this is occurring even though “the number of homeless families is rising because of high unemployment and the foreclosure crisis, but lawmakers say helping the new homeless is complicated by concerns over the deficit.”
To read Ms. Poliak’s full post click here.
In her post she quotes Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) on the inability to fund the National Housing Trust Fund:
The nation’s $1.2 trillion budget deficit is a “major obstacle” to funding the National Housing Trust Fund, according to Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime advocate for low-income housing.
“If it wasn’t for the deficit concern it would have been over already,” Frank said of the legislation funding the trust fund.
“It’s important to have a decent low-income housing program to…act as an alternative for putting low-income people into home ownership, which they can’t afford. But obviously, the concern about the deficit is a major obstacle,” Frank said.
Delays caused by deficit fears could derail the Obama Administrations efforts to implement the national plan to end homelessness in ten years. The Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness proposal emphasizes permanent housing solutions. The National Housing trust Fund (NHTF) would have been a key to achieving the goal of ending homelessness among veterans within five years and among families and children within a decade.
As Barbara Poppe, the Executive Director of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), stated: “For the first time, the nation will have goals, strategies, and measurable outcomes that will guide us toward a fiscally prudent government response. Local, state, and federal governments cannot afford to invest in anything but the most evidence-based, cost-effective strategies.”
If we are to end homelessness, now is the time to make the case that implementing Opening Doors is a cost-effective, evidence-based strategy. Thus, it imperative that it not be derailed by deficit anxiety.
We are ready. Are you?
Comments on this entry are closed.