2 PARAGRAPHS 4 LIBERTY: #246 "A PROPOSAL FOR SOLVING OUR HOMELESS PROBLEM"

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 I published an op-ed column in the Orange County Register about my proposal for an institutional approach to the homeless crisis.  Instead of our normal “2 Paragraphs” edition, this week I am substituting that column.  As always, feedback would be appreciated.  

Here is the Register column for your thoughts.

             Our great country seems to be vexed by the Homeless issue.  All of us should take affront that people living in the United States and within its laws are being reduced to “living on the streets.”  So how is this situation being perpetuated, and how should it be addressed?

             As we have seen, the various governments’ responses around the country to the homeless issue have been sporadic if not spasmodic.  Every once in a while a state or the federal government will set aside fairly large amounts of money in one-time payments, or temporarily open an armory, either to make themselves feel better or to reduce some political heat.  But then the cold hard facts are that the problems continue on virtually as before.

             So what we need instead is an institutional response that should greatly reduce this national and even moral problem.  My approach is modeled after Dr. Milton Friedman’s “negative income tax” proposal, and is as follows, with the amounts of money used only for illustrative purposes:

1.       No one in our country will pay any income taxes on their first $30,000 of earnings from whatever source – not you, me, Bill Gates or anyone else.  (This could evolve into a national graduated flat tax, but that is a different issue.)

2.       For those people who earn no money, regardless of the reason, anyone who is at least 18 years of age, a citizen of our country or here legally with a green card will receive a stipend from the federal government in the amount of $15,000 per year – probably broken down into monthly payments of $1,250.  However, for every dollar they earn they will lose 50 cents of the stipend.  (Accordingly, everyone will have an incentive to earn the extra dollar.)  And, importantly enough, ALL other welfare payments could be abolished, except those for people with truly special needs.

3.       So what about the homeless?  The answer is that if each of those people had the equivalent of an ATM account with $1,250 automatically deposited into it each month the private sector would quickly start providing low-cost room and board-style living for each of them, probably at a competitive rate of about $1,000 per month, which would leave the recipients an additional $250 to pay for personal items, clothing, etc.

That would be the program.  Of course, the opposing argument is that many of these people would simply throw their money away on alcohol and other drugs, gambling or otherwise be irresponsible.  So what about them?  The answer is that basically the homeless issue is and should be a local problem overseen by city and county governments.  The federal government could and should participate as stated above, and then leave the issue to local control.  And then at the local level there should be a triage system to address different groups of the homeless people, as follows:

1.       Some people are temporarily down on their luck, but they both can and want again to function successfully in our society.  For those people a temporary financial boost in their ATM accounts would probably be all they would need to get back on their feet. 

2.       Another much larger group would need to be screened for mental health, drug and alcohol and other debilitating conditions.  Then they would, if necessary, be given access to appropriate assistance, to the degree that if they needed a conservatorship or a program of drug rehabilitation, that would be mandated. 

3.       The final group would be comprised of those who simply want to continue living that type of life – or at least think they do.  Those people would be provided places to live such as at one of these room and board facilities, or at various government developmental centers, or even some of the presently lightly used reserve military facilities or the like.  As we all agree, no one in our society should be arrested for “camping” or trespassing on public property unless they have a place to live with a roof over their heads.  But this system would provide those places.  Then, once that system is in place, the police could resume their enforcement of local ordinances that prohibit things like littering and illegal camping, urinating or defecating in public, etc.  And a day or three in jail would help convince some of them to change habits.

Of course, there are always complications involved in any system like this, such as extra provisions being made for children and the differences in the costs of living in different parts of our country.  But those issues can be addressed locally without making the approach too complicated.

Accordingly, with the publication of this column, I am reaching out to all people of good will in our society, including the legal, medical, religious and social communities, as well as caring groups like the ACLU, NAACP, MALDEF, various rescue missions, places of worship and others.  In that regard, I openly say that I don’t purport to have all of the answers, but please join me in actively trying to find some by sending these ideas to your elected representatives.  Because, as it now exists, the homeless problem is untenable and is an insult to who we are a people.  And it calls for an institutional response to resolve it.

Question for the week: What is the difference between a raven and a crow?  Mostly unknown to people, a raven has five pinion feathers in its tail and a crow, which is smaller, has only four pinion feathers.  So the difference between a raven and a crow is a matter of a pinion. . . .

Judge Jim Gray (Ret.)

2012 Libertarian candidate for Vice President, along with

Governor Gary Johnson as the candidate for President

James P. Gray is a retired judge of the Superior Court in Orange County, California, a former Peace Corps Volunteer in Costa Rica, criminal defense attorney in the Navy JAG Corps, federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, and the 2012 Libertarian candidate for Vice President, along with Governor Gary Johnson as the candidate for President.

Please listen to our weekly radio show entitled “All Rise! The Libertarian Way with Judge Jim Gray” as we discuss timely issues, and show how they will be addressed more beneficially by employing Libertarian values and approaches.  You can hear it every Friday morning at 7 Pacific/10 Eastern by going to www.VoiceAmerica.com, clicking on the Variety Channel and then upon the word “live.”  You can also hear past shows on demand as well.  And, by the way, these 2 Paragraph columns are now on my website at www.JudgeJImGray.com, Facebook and LinkedIn at judgejimgray, Twitter at judgejamesgray, and wordpress at judgejimgray.wordpress.com.  Please visit these sites for past editions, and do your part to spread the word about the importance of Liberty.  In addition, my new book entitled “2 Paragraphs 4 Liberty: Solutions that are Practical, Effective, Responsible, Libertarian, is now available at Amazon.com.   Please read and discuss it with friends, and send in a review.

2 PARAGRAPHS 4 LIBERTY: #239 "AN INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO HOMELESSNESS"

To our 2 Paragraphs Family,

Instead of a normal edition, this week I am forwarding to you a copy of my Op-Ed that was published in the Orange County Register on Sunday, November 24, 2019 about how to address and resolve the our country’s Homeless Crisis.  As always, all feedback would be appreciated.  Here it is:

"AN INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO HOMELESSNESS"

                Our great country seems to be vexed by the Homeless issue.  All of us should take affront that people living in the United States and within its laws are being reduced to “living on the streets.”  So how is this situation being perpetuated, and how should it be addressed?

                As we have seen, the various governments’ responses around the country to the homeless issue have been sporadic if not spasmodic.  Every once in a while a state or the federal government will set aside fairly large amounts of money in one-time payments, or temporarily open an armory, either to make themselves feel better or to reduce some political heat.  But then the cold hard facts are that the problems continue on virtually as before.

                So what we need instead is an institutional response that should greatly reduce this national and even moral problem.  My approach is modeled after Dr. Milton Friedman’s “negative income tax” proposal, and is as follows, with the amounts of money used only for illustrative purposes:

1.       No one in our country will pay any income taxes on their first $30,000 of earnings from whatever source – not you, me, Bill Gates or anyone else.  (This could evolve into a national graduated flat tax, but that is a different issue.)

2.       For those people who earn no money, regardless of the reason, anyone who is at least 18 years of age, a citizen of our country or here legally with a green card will receive a stipend from the federal government in the amount of $15,000 per year – probably broken down into monthly payments of $1,250.  However, for every dollar they earn they will lose 50 cents of the stipend.  (Accordingly, everyone will have an incentive to earn the extra dollar.)  And, importantly enough, ALL other welfare payments could be abolished, except those for people with truly special needs.

3.       So what about the homeless?  The answer is that if each of those people had the equivalent of an ATM account with $1,250 automatically deposited into it each month the private sector would quickly start providing low-cost room and board-style living for each of them, probably at a competitive rate of about $1,000 per month, which would leave the recipients an additional $250 to pay for personal items, clothing, etc.

That would be the program.  Of course, the opposing argument is that many of these people would simply throw their money away on alcohol and other drugs, gambling or otherwise be irresponsible.  So what about them?  The answer is that basically the homeless issue is and should be a local problem overseen by city and county governments.  The federal government could and should participate as stated above, and then leave the issue to local control.  And then at the local level there should be a triage system to address different groups of the homeless people, as follows:

1.       Some people are temporarily down on their luck, but they both can and want again to function successfully in our society.  For those people a temporary financial boost in their ATM accounts would probably be all they would need to get back on their feet. 

2.       Another much larger group would need to be screened for mental health, drug and alcohol and other debilitating conditions.  Then they would, if necessary, be given access to appropriate assistance, to the degree that if they needed a conservatorship or a program of drug rehabilitation, that would be mandated. 

3.       The final group would be comprised of those who simply want to continue living that type of life – or at least think they do.  Those people would be provided places to live such as at one of these room and board facilities, or at various government developmental centers, or even some of the presently lightly used reserve military facilities or the like.  As we all agree, no one in our society should be arrested for “camping” or trespassing on public property unless they have a place to live with a roof over their heads.  But this system would provide those places.  Then, once that system is in place, the police could resume their enforcement of local ordinances that prohibit things like littering and illegal camping, urinating or defecating in public, etc.  And a day or three in jail would help convince some of them to change habits.

Of course, there are always complications involved in any system like this, such as extra provisions being made for children and the differences in the costs of living in different parts of our country.  But those issues can be addressed locally without making the approach too complicated.

Accordingly, with the publication of this column, I am reaching out to all people of good will in our society, including the legal, medical, religious and social communities, as well as caring groups like the ACLU, NAACP, MALDEF, various rescue missions, places of worship and others.  In that regard, I openly say that I don’t purport to have all of the answers, but please join me in actively trying to find some by sending these ideas to your elected representatives.  Because, as it now exists, the homeless problem is untenable and is an insult to who we are a people.  And it calls for an institutional response to resolve it.

Quote for the week: “The federal government’s debt is the most immoral of all taxes because it is a tax upon people who are not yet born.  So it is taxation without representation.”  Dominic Frisby

Judge Jim Gray (Ret.)

2012 Libertarian candidate for Vice President, along with

Governor Gary Johnson as the candidate for President

Please listen to our weekly radio show entitled “All Rise! The Libertarian Way with Judge Jim Gray” as we discuss timely issues, and show how they will be addressed more beneficially by employing Libertarian values and approaches.  You can hear it every Friday morning at 7 Pacific/10 Eastern by going to www.VoiceAmerica.com, clicking on the Variety Channel and then upon the word “live.”  You can also hear past shows on demand as well.  And, by the way, these 2 Paragraph columns are now on Facebook and LinkedIn at judgejimgray, Twitter at judgejamesgray, and wordpress at judgejimgray.wordpress.com.  Please visit these sites for past editions, and do your part to spread the word about the importance of Liberty.

2 PARAGRAPHS 4 LIBERTY: #202 "A COMPENSATION DILEMMA"

     One of the issues today that appears mainly unfixable but also eminently unfair and even infuriating is the disparity of compensation paid to the lower working classes versus that sometimes provided to some senior employees and officers of some public companies.  For example, when I read about severance packages in the tens of millions of dollars for some senior executives, it feels obscene.  Why should any such person ever be in the position to receive any such payout?  It is simply too much money!  I know that life is often unfair and it is certainly complicated, and that compensation is also often reduced by a progressive income tax system, but this still bothers me.  But the problem is, what can be done about it, if anything? 

       For the government to reach in and put limits upon compensation packages in the private sector both strongly violates my libertarian philosophy as a clear violation of Liberty, and is also impractical.  It is clear that private competing companies must be able to attract and retain gifted, experienced, creative and insightful leaders, and one effective way to do that is to offer attractive compensation packages.  For example, most people probably agree that people like Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Thomas Edison should be well compensated by their companies.  The problem is that the compensation packages of most CEOs and other high officials are mostly set by the board of directors.  But, as a practical matter, most of the members of the boards have their positions at the pleasure of those same officials.  So the relationship can be incestuous and often hollow.  An alternative would be for there to be a law that everyone’s compensation package be capped at something like ten times that paid to the lowest-paid worker.  But formulas like that can bring both substantial philosophical and practical problems of their own, depending upon many variables.  (Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences?)

         I don’t have a proposed resolution for this nagging and sometimes even galling problem, but instead bring it to you for your thoughts and suggestions.  Please respond as to those thoughts.  It is an important issue that bothers many people in our country in a time that we need both to heal many wounds and also have people believe that they are being addressed and healed.  Do you agree?  If so, what should be done about this issue, if anything?

Quote for the week:  “Dreams are not so different from deeds as some may think.  All the deeds of men are only dreams at first.  And in the end, their deeds dissolve into dreams.”                                                                                          Theodore Herzl:  Old New Land (1902)

Judge Jim Gray (Ret.) 

2012 Libertarian candidate for Vice President, along with

 Governor Gary Johnson as the candidate for President

By the way, these columns are now on Facebook and LinkedIn at judgejimgray, Twitter at judgejamesgray, and wordpress at judgejimgray@wordpress.com.  Please visit these sites for past editions, and do your part to spread the word about the importance of Liberty.