Skip to comments.What About the Homeless? … The Homeless Then and Now—Obama and Reagan (Now a non-issue under Obama)
Posted on 10/23/2012 10:29:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As a biographer of Ronald Reagan, Im constantly asked to compare todays fiscal/economic situation to what Reagan faced in the 1980s. Todays record debt/deficits remind of the 1980s, though todays are far worse, with the deficit at least six times as highand debt-to-GDP and deficit-to-GDP ratios two and three times (respectively) higher. The current economy is the worst since the early 1980s, with a prolonged non-recovering "recovery older still. By 1984, the Reagan recovery was not just in bloom but exploding, with dramatically improved unemployment and economic growth six times higher than the current anemic rate, awarding Reagan millions of Democratic votes as he swept 49 of 50 states in his re-election.
But one comparison I havent been asked about are todays homeless levels vs. those under Reagan. Thats a notable omission. One who has noticed is Dr. Tracy Miller, an economist and colleague of mine. Miller recently visited Chicago, where he went to graduate school in the 1980s, and was struck by what he saw. I couldnt help but notice the large number of homeless people in the downtown area, says Miller, including one homeless man pushing a child in a stroller.
Miller observes: Homelessness was frequently discussed during the 1980s, but seems to receive less media attention now. And yet, the number of homeless today is approximately twice as large as it was in the 1980s.
Miller is correct. According to data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there is at least twice the number of homeless today than at a comparable point in Reagans first term. HUD estimated that there were 250,000-350,000 homeless on a typical night at the end of 1983. As Dr. Miller notes, this compares with an estimated 636,000 homeless at the end of 2011, the figures heading into the fourth year of Obamas presidency.
And yet, when Ronald Reagan faced re-election, liberal Democrats made homelessness a huge political issue, portraying the homeless as stacked like cord wood on every street corner. They made wildly unsubstantiated claims. One source maintained there were 250,000 homeless in Chicago alonean impossible number that the media nonetheless happily reported. Homeless advocates like the late Mitch Snyder described dire scenarios in the nations capital.
Those of us who lived through this spectacle recall that you couldnt turn on the nightly news without grim homeless updates. It seemed a regular nightly report by Dan Rather on CBS Evening News. It was framed as a national pandemic, laid at the cold, uncaring feet of Reaganomics. It was used against President Reagan with great vigor and viciousness in his re-election bid.
And yet, the numbers today, during President Obamas re-election bid, are worse. A report by the National Alliance to End Homelessness lists 636,017 homeless in 2011which is actually down slightly from 2009, when the numbers were 643,067. The report, titled State of Homelessness in America 2012, suggests the small decrease of 7,000 might be attributable to the decrease in homeless military veterans: The largest decrease was among homeless veterans, whose population declined 11 percent. The number of homeless veterans went from 75,609 in 2009 to 67,495 in 2011a reduction of about 8,000. Unfortunately, the reports also states that While the homeless population decreased nationally, it increased in 24 states and the District of Columbia.
The year 2011 is the most recent year for which data is provided. I suspect that the numbers are worse for 2012, given the chronic long-term unemployment and the record 47 million Americans on food stamps.
Either way, 636,000 homeless is an eye-opening statistic, as is the sight of the homeless. I recently visited California. I was stunned by all the homeless I encountered in beautiful, wealthy towns like Santa Barbara. Its impossible to walk down the street and not get asked for money. Not coincidentally, perhaps, it was just reported that Erin Moran, star of the 1970s hit TV show, Happy Days, is homeless.
All of this begs a question: Why isnt this being talked about? In the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was president, all you heard about were the homeless. The media went bonkers over the issue. Until the moment he left office, the press hounded Reagan about the homeless and his alleged responsibility for their plight.
In fact, still today, liberals use the homeless to discredit the Reagan record. Liberal websites run headlines like How Reagan Created the Homeless and Reagan and the Homeless Epidemic in America.
Why isnt the media talking about the homeless under President Obama? Why arent liberals? Do they suddenly no longer care about the homeless? Or are the homeless merely a convenient political tool, to be ignored or exploited depending on whose party is up for re-election?
Funny you mentioned this...I was just talking with fellow workers yesterday we were making bets on how soon the lamestream media would resurrect the homeless should the Obamadork loose the election.
Estimates ranged from 1 hour to one day after the inauguration of the real man.
There is such a boom in the homeless population of Austin, TX that the city council is considering a plan to tax all meals and beverages consumed in the city in order to take care of even more homeless. Yes, that’s crazy, but typical of those running the Democrat sink-hole that Austin is.
Does living in your mom’s basement constitute being homeless?
The number of displaced/euthanized pets is at an all time high, as well, thanks to the housing/economy crash.
For eight years under Clinton, nobody in the msm saw fit to mention the urban outdoorsman. Within a week of Bush taking the Presidency, suddenly homelessness was a problem again!
I expect nothing different this time.
Minitru (US media) will resurrect the homeless the day Romney is inaugurated. Didn’t they try this with Bush in 2001? I seem to recall that there were a few “reports” then, but it quickly died off due to the derision of how obvious the ploy was. Same will happen in January.
-you'd think Exxon had become a non-profit, instead of a target---
It’s all in the packaging.
They started as “bums.”
Then they were the “homeless.”
Now they’re “Occupy.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.