From today’s Washington Post, " Survey Indicates More Go Hungry, Homeless Aid Lacking as Greater Demands Conflict With Improving Economy, Report Says":
More cities have had residents turned away from emergency food and shelter assistance this year than in any year since 1997, according to a report released yesterday by the nation's mayors, who said that a weak though improving economy has made it harder to help the needy.Overall, requests for emergency food assistance jumped by 17 percent this year and requests for shelter increased by 13 percent, according to the 25-city survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. On average, 14 percent of requests for food aid and 30 percent of requests for shelter went unmet. The annual survey pointed to unemployment and lack of affordable housing as the leading causes of hunger and homelessness.
"The survey underscores the impact the economy has had on everyday Americans," said conference president, Mayor James A. Garner of Hempstead, N.Y.
People were turned away from food assistance agencies in 56 percent of the cities and from shelter in 84 percent. Those figures -- the highest in six years -- reflect belt-tightening in cities and states, which has affected food banks and shelters, officials said.
"The economy coming back slowly has caused us to have more demands than we were anticipating," said Mayor Paul D. Pate of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, who co-chairs the conference's task force on hunger and homelessness. "A lot of nonprofit agencies have been having a tough time financially. Private dollars have been slower in coming in, and there's no doubt that tax dollars are tighter."[. . .]
The report found that the homeless population consists of 41 percent single men, 40 percent families with children, 14 percent single women and 5 percent unaccompanied youths. An average of 23 percent of the homeless population is mentally ill, 30 percent are substance abusers, 17 percent are employed and 10 percent are veterans.
Replacing Bush with someone who makes human services a priority is one way to help. Here’s another, or Google to find a shelter closer to your home.
I am surprised that anyone is surprised to hear Mr. Paul O'Neill state that the Bush Administration was planning to go into Iraq from start. The Program for a New American Century has made no secret of its desire to go to war in Iraq (and many other places with strategic resources) and it is no coincidence that the movers and shakers of the PNAC are at the center of Bush's Adminstration (and those that got him the job): Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Jeb Bush. So why is anyone surprised that Bush was planning to invade Iraq from the start? At the time of the 2000 election fiasco I was sending dozens of notes through internet chat rooms to military folks who were supporting Bush with a strong voice. These fine military men and women believed that George W. Bush was going to "support them". I told them that they were mistaken. Bush would use them, yes, but they were likely to see their benefits and pay cut, as the cost of Bush's wars got out of control. I told them that before Bush's second year was up, they would be fighting in Iraq. So, my timing was off a little, but I don't even have access to the intelligence community or the people making the decisions and I could see the Iraq fiasco coming back in November of 2000. But no-one listens to common sense anymore.
Look into the PNAC and see how their strategy for global domination (military, economic, and cultural) include more wars on the horizon. The plan even includes domination of space, so it is no coincidence that Bush wants to go back to the moon. This is no secret conspiracy, this is official U.S. doctrine under the Bush administration - get a copy of the published document "National Security Strategy of the United States of America."
Or go to the PNAC website and lookk at their letter to President Clinton encouraging the attack of Iraq: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm. The National Security Strategy developed by these PNAC members in power includes: attacking possible future competitors first, assuming regional hegemony by force of arms, controlling energy resources around the globe, and maintaining a permanent-war strategy. Scary stuff.
Paul O'Neill had to choose between loyalty to a president with dangerous plans and loyalty to America. He chose correctly.
Linda Wilson, Sitka, Alaska (Moderate Republican)
A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.
Posted by: Nardo Abby on June 30, 2004 09:10 AM
