Food stamp variation

Eldest Daughter suggested that surplus or in-season food could be made into 2-fer or discounted deals for food stamp use. It seemed to her a non-paternalist way to encourage healthier eating, since currently the cheapest calories per buck tend to be "junk food." "Junk food" isn't so great if you're susceptible to type 2 diabetes, as it turns out a surprising number of us are.

A quick survey didn't show that anybody tries this, which is a bit surprising. Maybe it's a problem of coordination between federal funding and the states: the state may have in-season foods that other states don't and the feds are one size fits all?

Perverse incentives

HUD's approach makes a very poor long-term strategy. Last year Dubuque (last month a different town; another day another lawsuit), noticing that their low income housing was attracting disproportionately out-of-towners, made residency a very high factor in getting priority for housing vouchers. HUD charged them with discriminating against blacks.

In the summer of 2009, public perceptions attributed an increase in crime to new African American residents from Chicago. Until that time, HCDD provided five preference points to anyone who had very low income. However, in late 2009 those points were eliminated and the voucher waiting list closed, except to applicants who had one of the other preference points, such as elderly applicants. This change in admission policy effectively allowed applicants from out of state only if they qualified for disabled or elderly preference points. FHEO found an internal memorandum indicating that the intent of the policy change was to close the waiting list to out of town applicants in order to address public perceptions on crime.

Note the highlighted word. Instead of "attributed" substitute the more accurate "observed." The problem is real, and not a mis-perception.

Also notice that the town is now paying extra taxes to take on the residents of other states.

Rather than encouraging Chicago to tackle its own problems, HUD is encouraging the use of "Greyhound housing": ship people somewhere else out of your hair.

The policy no doubt has all sorts of good intentions, but the effective incentives are to 1) slow down efforts to take care of the poor in your own community for fear the program will be hijacked to take care of outsiders instead and 2) encourage communities to persuade their poor people to go someplace else--anyplace else.

And I suspect that local assistance to people who are part of the community is more likely, on the average, to be effective than assistance to strangers.

Using money

I know that 19 times out of 20 money I give to one of the homeless guys (almost all men), will promptly be wasted on drugs, alcohol, smokes by the cigarette--wasted at best, harmful most of the time.

That by itself isn't obviously such a great reason not to give--if I don't, will I spend it on a fattening lunch or book I won't get around to reading? Wasted either way, possibly damaging either way.(*)

Encouraging the homeless to hang around and beg isn't good for them or the rest of us, and turning charity into an anonymous financial transaction shrivels it. So there's that. But there they are, and there's Jesus strong words...

I used to give McD tickets (they're not on the Square anymore)--still kind of anonymous, and maybe even a little insulting, but less harmful. Though McD's might have their own ideas about customers who sit in a booth all day.

The one thing I have trouble prying loose is time.

(*)Actually, reviewing the receipt ledger suggests that most of the cash goes to groceries and gasoline.