Kevin McMahon

Phil 170

As the book Rachel and Her Children opens we meet Peter and Megan. Both of them are living in the Martinique homeless shelter with their five children. Prior to ending up in the shelter Peter had been sort of a jack-of-all-trades. He did plumbing, carpentry etc; he was a contributing, working, member of society. Then, tragedy struck and his house burned down; all of the tools he used for his work were in that house. After years of building up his collection of tools they were all gone in a fire that also destroyed his home. Without his tools he was no longer able to do the work he had been doing to support his family the whole time. They ended up stuck in the homeless shelter. They remained stuck in the Martinique because the city only allowed about 360 dollars a month of rent and Megan said she could not find housing for seven people on that kind of money. Although the city was spending over three thousand dollars a month to house the family in the Martinique they would allow no more than 366 dollars. If the family could have recieved a much higher lump sum they might have been able to not only find housing but Peter may have been able to replace his tools and then they would not have needed pubic assistance anymore.

Although each story in Jonathan Kozol’s book is different one aspect sticks out in my mind. Most of the individuals in the book had some crisis or tragedy that knocked them off of their feet for a while. Once knocked down, with no-one to fall back onto they fell into the “trap” of homelessness. For example we meet Kim who was forced out of her home when the furnace died in the middle of winter, she subsequently lost her job. Also we meet Mr. Allessandro, he was forced to cut back to part time after his wife left him; unfortunately part time could not pay the rent. All the stories vary, but tragedy appears to be a common thread.

I feel that society does have an ethical responsibility to all of it’s members, and each member has certain responsibilities in return. As long as the individual is willing to work then I feel society does have a responsibilty to feed and house an individual. Children should be given these whether they work or not, but that does not mean that lazy parents can get a free-ride due to having children. Also some people with disabilities should be cared for as well, but only disabilities that render a person totally unable to take care of themselves. People with drug habits and/or alcoholics should not be given food and shelter just so they can continue to abuse drugs, they must be forced to quit. I feel that we have a moral obligation to help others, but not just give them a hand-out but to help them to help themselves. An ancient saying sums it up “give a man a fish, feed him for a day; but TEACH him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime.”

We have this moral obligation because any one of us could find ourselves a victim of the circumstances needing the assistance of society at one point or another. Allowing for a working safety net is like insurance that we all can pay into, but only if it actually helps get people on their own two feet again. My views most strongly follow a puritanical slant, no work no eat.

Everyone should have equality of educational opportunity. In this country you are guaranteed and education up to the twelfth grade level. Everyone poor or rich has an opportunity to get this education, whether you can afford some great private school or just the local public school, the door is open. Although college is not free or guaranteed I contend that anyone who wants to get a college education bad enough, whether poor or rich, has the opportunity. If you work harder than anyone else in your school has ever worked and you become the most rounded student, there are scholarships out there. Beyond scholarships there currently are many government programs for low-income families to help afford college, from loans to grants. If an individual screws around in high school and does not get good grades is it the obligation of society to give this person a college level education, no. Whether rich or poor, dumb or smart, with enough work, a good education is all but guaranteed.

During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt introduced, the New Deal. One of the parts of this new deal was the Works Progress Administration (WPA) that gave jobs to many unemployed Americans. In the years from 1935 until 1941 the WPA employed an average of 2.1 million people. Using the resources of a depression era government that number is astonishing. With the growth of the US economy since then, the possibilities for a similar program could eradicate homelessness as we know it. The WPA employed mainly doing construction and renovation work on public buildings and roads, something this country always needs.

Rather than our government handing out 3,000 dollars a month just to house a family in a hotel, this is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. Get needed work done and give someone an income at the same time. Beyond just the fact that this creates jobs for otherwise homeless people, it opens opportunities for them; it would provide an escape for many people in different ways. For some it would allow time to regroup and save money to, for example, purchase more tools. For others it would provide an income while still allowing time for job training to get a better non-subsidized job. Since the jobs would be tailored to the specific needs of those searching for apartments and jobs, a regular work week might run from Tuesday until Saturday to allow Mondays for interviews etc. Those employed by the government could live in housing similar to that used by the military for both families and singles. Also with the recent closing of several military bases there is housing currently ready.

A Libertarian would probably have several objections to a proposal such as this. He would probably argue that he shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s problems and that if you are homeless it is your own fault. An obvious response to this would be that those employed by the WPA are actually gainfully employed and are working for the benefits that they receive much like your average government employee. He may also argue that homeless people are lazy and all they want is a free hand-out and would therefore reject working for the government. Ok, some may be like that and would rather get a free hand-out, but with the re-advent of the WPA would be the farewell of welfare; the government will no longer give handouts, “you don’t work you don’t eat”. If you have children and refuse to join the program the children will not starve, they will be taken away from the parents.

Home Outdoors Various School Projects Rat Babies Wacky Test Results Contact Kevin McMahon