i have to agree with my liberal friends on that
statement. if i were rich, i'd not take government
benifits even if i were "elegible." again i think this
is just morally right.
i do believe you can't do a tax cut without giving
some of it to the ones that pay the highest taxes.
those are the people that will create jobs. that and
small business owners. i know that the trickle down
view is scoffed at, but, as a new ecconomics major,
call it what you wish that is how it works. but, the
rich should not draw benifits that thgey don't need.
it is sort of like giving to a charity. if you do not
need it, then don't take it.
i hope i am not being confusing.
--- Kat <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Oy vey...I especially love the fact that more
> higher-income people would be=
> eligible for this. (sarcasm here)
>
> I hate the fact that they're taking more choices
> away from the poor and dis=
> abled. As if they had too much choice in their
> lives already...(sarcasm ag=
> ain)
>
> Kat
>
> -------Original Message-------
> From: "Michael H. Collis" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 05/21/03 12:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Fw: Voucher Plan Removes Disabled
> Preference.
>
> >=20
> > Alright, Ken. I'd like to know what you'd say
> about this? this is a hard
> issue for me.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justice For All Moderator
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:05 PM
> Subject: Voucher Plan Removes Disabled Preference.
>
>
> >Voucher Plan Removes Disabled Preference.
>
> >[[log in to unmask]] writes:
> >Administration Housing Voucher Plan Removes
> Disabled Preference.
> >
> >Administration's plan would target vouchers to
> families with
> >higher incomes and eliminate the preference for
> homeless and
> >disabled, among other negative impacts.
> >
> >National Alliance to End Homelessness
> >Online Newsletter
> >May 2, 2003
> >
> >Administration Introduces Housing Voucher Plan
> >
> >The Administration has released its plan to
> restructure the Housing
> >Choice Voucher program (typically referred to as
> the tenant-based
> >Section 8 program). The proposal, which is called
> Housing Assistance
> >for Needy Families or HANF, would do the following:
> >
> >* change the structure of funding to no longer fund
> a specified number of
> >vouchers
> >
> >* encourage States to target vouchers to families
> with higher incomes;
> >
> >* allow States to implement time limits for
> vouchers;
> >
> >* eliminate several preference options including
> ones for homeless
> families
> >and persons with disabilities;
> >
> >* establish several performance measures;
> >
> >* give funding to States instead of housing
> authorities.
> >
> >Instead of funding a specific number of vouchers,
> as has been the case
> >since the beginning of the tenant-based voucher
> programs, funding would
> be
> >provided as a block grant to States. According to
> an analysis by the
> Center
> >on Budget and Policy Priorities, the change in
> funding structure could
> lead
> >to a decline in the value of housing subsidies over
> time relative to
> >housing costs. Since 1998, the average fair market
> rent, an indicator of
> >actual housing costs, has increased at twice the
> general rate of
> inflation
> >and significantly more than the inflation factor
> HUD uses to set rents in
> >the project-based section 8 program.
> >
> >Other proposed changes would allow States to serve
> higher income families
> >than are now served under the voucher program. The
> proposal would require
> >States to serve the same number of families as are
> now served by housing
> >vouchers. However, if there is less funding
> available, or if funding does
> >not keep up with the rising cost of housing, States
> would have to target
> >vouchers to families that have higher incomes.
> Currently, 75% percent of
> >new vouchers must go to households that have
> incomes below 30% of area
> >median income (usually about $15,000 - $20,000 per
> year). The new
> proposal
> >would allow States to request waivers to allow only
> 55% of vouchers to
> >serve this population. Homeless households have an
> average income that is
> >about 15% of area median income. Thus states would
> have a strong
> incentive
> >not to serve homeless families under the new
> proposal.
> >
> >The bill (H.R. 1841) was introduced in the House by
> Representative Bob
> Ney
> >(R-OH). In a press release, Ney stated, =C3=A2 the
> issue of reforming Sect=
> ion
> >8 is a contentious one, while I am introducing this
> legislation at the
> >request of the Administration, I am also entering
> this debate as a
> neutral
> >party=C3=A2 A Senate version of the bill (S. 947)
> was introduced by Senato=
> r
> >Wayne Allard (R-CO).
> >
> >The National Alliance to End Homelessness has
> prepared a summary of the
> >proposal, which is available at
> homelessness.org/pol/papers/hanf.htm"
> >http://www.endhomelessness.org/pol/papers/hanf.htm
> >
> >A series of analyses of the Housing Voucher Program
> is available from the
> >Center on Budget and Policy Priorities at:
> HREF=3D"http://www.cbpp.org/housingvoucher.htm"
> >http://www.cbpp.org/housingvoucher.htm
> >Justice-For-All Moderator
> >[log in to unmask]
> >
>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > Justice-For-All FREE Subscriptions
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to
> [log in to unmask]
> > with one or the other in the body of your
> message:
> > subscribe justice
> > unsubscribe justice
> >
> >
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|
