[Previous entry: "The City Council at Work and Rest"] [Next entry: "SOME THOUGHTS FROM LINCOLN ON ELECTION DAY"]

10/15/2004: "WHAT A LITTLE MONEY CAN DO."

WHAT A LITTLE MONEY CAN DO?

One of the issues in this Presidential campaign has been trust. And as my five readers may know, I wrote an anti-war column devoted to the issue before the Iraq war. And since I did not support going to war because I did not trust the President or any of his statements or figures (remember the argument how the war would pay for itself with cheaper oil prices… sheesh), I figured that I would try to determine what we could have done with the $200 billion or so Bush’s war will probably end up costing you and me.

I am going to solve a host of issues with $200 billion. Almost all related to New York City.

Let’s start with the homeless. There are approximately 9,000 homeless families in New York City. So I want to house these families. New York City has about 3% of the nation’s population so although there are vast regions that do not have the same homeless problem as New York City, I am going to assume the proportion of homeless families are uniform throughout the country. Thus, I want to take care of approximately 300,000 homeless families nationwide.

Now building a unit of housing costs about $100,000 in New York City. I am going to assume that is the same throughout the country (it is not but I am willing to use inflated figures). A home for each one of those families would cost us $30 billion. Throw in an extra $10 billion for homeless singles (for whom housing is less), and I have still have $160 billion left. But I have ended homeless.

Now is the time where you say “thank you” to James Eugene. But save the kudos, I have more yet to do.

New York City hospitals constantly complain of having to take care of the uninsured. And the uninsured are a big issue in this campaign with about 40 million Americans without health insurance. I am going to assume a good chunk of them are in families so let’s buy family coverage for 12 million families and single coverage for 10 million individuals.

Now John Kerry said it cost $7,700 to cover his family. I was willing to use a higher figure, after all, I am in New York City. However, I must figure that D.C. has expensive medical coverage too. So for the families, let’s use a figure of $8,000. And for individuals, it is never quite half, so let’s use a figure of $4,500. The family coverage would amount to $96 billion and the singles coverage would amount to $45 million, making a total of $141 million.

Now that everybody has a health insurance, you might expect me to take a break from all this heavy lifting. But I am not done yet. I have $19 billion left.

Every New York City politician will complain about the high cost of heating this winter and talk about how more relief is needed for the poor and seniors. (Do any of you doubt me on this?) My guess is an extra $300 to defray the increased cost of heating would be a great help.

Now I am going to assume that about 20 million households will need this help, which is around 20% of the nation’s households. And the cost? A mere $6 billion.

Okay, we have made it through the winter. And President Bush loves education and everyone was talking about those Pell grants in the last debate. And you know the cost of CUNY and SUNY will be going up. We have $13 billion left. I am in a generous mood and want to give 100,000 college students $10,000 towards their tuition because as Dan Quayle said, a mind is a terrible thing to lose. Cost of this generousity, $10 billion.

We still have $3 billion left. And goodness knows, we have seen Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox and even Nancy Reagan push for stem cell research. But the idea is too controversial and I must figure that the ideologues in the House and Senate will filibuster me to death. So let’s pick something on which they can agree. Let’s set up the Ronald Reagan Alzheimer’s Memorial Research Fund. I think $2 billion should do it.

Okay, I’m done.

Wait you say, there is a billion left.

Consider it my consultant’s fee.

Replies: 4 Comments

on Wednesday, November 24th, James Eugene said

I have a somewhat ambiguous feeling on illegal immigrants. I mean why have immigration laws if we are not going to enforce them.

But NYC's immigration problem is really not problematic other than for the purpose of weeding out terrorists. I mean really, do they really take away jobs from current residents. And it is not like a lot of them are on welfare, because frankly they actually work, usually at jobs that others don't really want. Labor unions do hate them, however, only because they increase the labor pool (increasing labor supply) leading to lower wages among the working class. That much said, some labor leaders are ambivalent on this because their membership often consists of legal aliens or naturalized citizens who are from the same countries as the illegals.

In other parts of the country, the economics might be different and the analysis may be different. But in New York City, we really don't have much of a substantive problem from this issue, aside from weeding out potential terrorists (and remember that the 9-11 terrorists if they hung out anywhere did so in Jersey).

However, don't label me a liberal yet. For those who would give explicit benefits like City housing I would not and I would report if they submit an application. Other areas, for humanitarian reasons (food stamps and health care), I would not deny. But quality of life benefits should go first to citizens and then legal immigrants. And if they get arrested for any felony and if convicted, they should immediately be deported.

on Wednesday, November 17th, Rich said

How about spending some of that money to actually enforce our immigration laws and deport EVERY illegal alien in NYC. That's the ticket. What? Somone is offended? I'm shocked! Shocked that there are illegals here in NYC. What? We should call them migrants instead of ILLEGAL alients? I don't think so.

on Wednesday, October 27th, James Eugene said

Sorry Tom, but you miss the point. I have a lot of money to spend (and it will be over $200 billion after the next budget request). So I am spending it where I want.

A couple of points on your remarks on homelessness though. First of all, the Wall Street Journal (that bastion of socialism) actually supports building housing for the homeless with supportive services because there is actually no difference in cost. That's right, it costs $42,000 to society to have a homeless mentally ill person on the street and it costs $42,000 to house them in a supportive environment. You are paying either way, the only question is how you want to pay for it. With jail lock-ups, crime, etc... or with a humane solution.

Moreover, with respect to homeless families it is cheaper to build them houses than to house them in shelters. The fact is once the homeless families have a stable environment it is actually cheaper and easier to provide the services. So again, in the long run, you save money.

The ironic thing about homelessness is that the solutions are already out there. It requires a bureaucratic transformation of the paradigm on how we treat the homeless.

One last note on the homeless issue. In the 1950's and 60's we had much fewer homeless (about 5% of what we have now) than we have now, but mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse rates were the same or even higher. The difference was those people were housed. Granted homes do not take care of the social issue, but again it makes it easier to treat.

Challenge me on health care or some of the other items. But I studied homelessness for many years and despite my fiscal conservatism, I realized the "socialist" answer was actually the more fiscally prudent answer. It may seems strange, but in this instance, it is actually true.

on Monday, October 18th, Tom said

I would consider any kind of a socialist consultation free. You seem to have a lot of plans to use MY tax dollars for the poor. Except in your plans you forgot to calculate the cost of keeping these "homeless" surviving. Just give them a home and your done right? Wrong! You really think just because you built most of these folks a house they will start working and paying for their own expenses, with all of the programs out there to help those in need of work and money already. Why do you want the government to run everything? What happened to the day when a man was a man when he provided for his family by the sweat of his brow, not by the hand outs of the government. You socialist seem to need the government to survive, as those of us in a capitalist society only need ourselves.