Deval is Wrong!

Massachusetts Govenor Deval Patrick's latest plan to handle the undesirables of the state:

Homeless families face strict new rules - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis

Let's take a look at homelessness in Boston by numbers:



Number of homeless individuals in the Winter of 2006-2007-

on the Street: 437
in Emergency Shelter: 6761

Possible wage potential for the least educated and poorest in Mass:

As of September 1, 1997, the federally-set minimum wage for covered, nonexempt employees was set at $5.15 per hour. (Those under 20 years of age can be paid $4.25 for the first 90 days.) Massachusetts currently has a $6.75 minimum wage: when a state's rate is higher, it takes precedence over the national rate.

Sources: US Department of Labor's webpages on minimum wage: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm and Code of Massachusetts Regulations: http://www.ago.state.ma.us/sp.cfm?pageid=1111
hrs/wk wks/yr min. wage total income

National rate: $5.15 $ 9,373 for 35 hours or $5.15 $10,712 for 40 hours.

State rate: 35 hours: $6.75 $12,285 or $6.75 $14,040 for 40 hours.

Who are we talking about?

In Massachusetts, children under 19 years of age were numbered at 1,502,000 as the result of a three-year average of 2000, 2001, and 2002 figures. Of that number, 458,000, or 30.5% were considered at or below 200% of poverty. 40,000 were reported as being at that level and without health insurance.

Source: US Bureau of the Census, Low Income Uninsured Children by State: 2000, 2001, and 2002. http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/liuc02.html

The three-year average for 1998, 1999, and 2000 was 1,603,000 total children in Massachusetts under the age of 19. 564,000 of these children lived at or below 200% of poverty, and 68,000 of them without health insurance.

Source: US Bureau of the Census, Low Income Uninsured Children by State: 1998, 1999, and 2000. http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/liuc00.html

So, let me get this straight, residents of the Bay State (let's be honest, this will affect single mothers and their children the most) are expected to save 30% of their incomes, which for many may be a mere $360 but after they buy food, clothes, transportation, etc. just to continue to work at the job they are required to have, in order to be eligible for housing services?

OK. I got it. Instead of offering mental health and social work services to the homeless and working with residents to put their lives on a successful track, we make archaic policies and expectations on their income. In a time where even those of us in the higher income categories cannot save 30% of our income. Anyone want a job at the state house on Beacon Hill because I am thinking even George Bush might make a more reasonable plan than Patricks's. I do use the word might loosely though.