Dear Weekend Jolter,
Hello and happy Masters weekend to those who celebrate. Jack Crowe here filling in for Judd Berger, who will be back next week.
The State of California has allocated $24 billion over the past five years to address homelessness, but no one is quite sure how that vast sum of taxpayer money has been spent or whether it’s making any difference.
That’s the outrageous top-line finding of a state audit released earlier this week.
“The State lacks current information on the ongoing costs and outcomes of its homelessness programs, because Cal ICH [the California Interagency Council on Homelessness] has not consistently tracked and evaluated the State's efforts to prevent and end homelessness,” state auditor Grant Parks wrote in his introduction to the revealing report.
That’s right, since 2019 California has spent roughly the equivalent of the entire nation of Georgia’s GDP — and homelessness in the state has only gotten worse.
Over the five-year period covered by the audit, California’s homeless population grew by 20 percent, from 151,278 in 2019 to 181,399 in 2023. Roughly 30 percent of the country’s entire homeless population is now clustered in California.
Rather than helping people get back on their feet, California’s vast, unaccountable homeless-industrial complex — comprising nine state agencies and more than 30 individual programs — appears to be creating an ever-growing population of dependents.
How can so much money be spent on a problem that only gets worse? Cal ICH, which oversees all state homelessness programs, has seemingly gone out of its way to make that question impossible to answer. In June 2021, the agency gave up on tracking how state money was being spent or whether the funds were helping accomplish stated goals, according to the audit.
Auditors looked specifically at five of the more than 30 homelessness programs funded by the state and found that two of them “appear” to be “cost-effective.” (They couldn’t evaluate the other three programs because there was no available data on money spent and resulting outcomes.) But even the apparently cost-effective programs involve mind-blowing expenditures: One program converts existing structures such as hotels into short-term housing at a cost of $144,000 per unit, a significant savings over the $380,000 to $570,000 it would cost to build new units, but still quite a price tag. And, because of California’s housing-first approach to homelessness, which frowns on group shelters as inhumane, each of those units houses only one homeless person or family. The other program provides financial assistance to Californians deemed at risk of becoming homeless, at a cost of $12,000 to $20,000 per household. That might be a bargain compared with the estimated $30,000 to $50,000 the state spends on each homeless person per year, but it’s still hefty.
So, if the state is spending the rough equivalent of the median American salary on each and every homeless person annually, why are so many of them still on the street? A significant percentage of that money — figuring out exactly how much would require detailed accounting of the sort that apparently eludes state agencies — is being gobbled up by ineffective nonprofits that secure lucrative contracts with the state and use the money to pay out fat salaries to executives, among other questionable overhead costs.
To pick one particularly striking example from among many: The L.A. nonprofit HOPICS (Homeless Outreach Program Integrated Care System), which has received $140 million in combined federal, state, and local funding over the last three years, employs middlemen to rent out houses and apartments and sublet them to formerly homeless tenants. More than 300 of those tenants were evicted from their homes last year after the nonprofit stopped paying its bills, according to an investigation by the nonprofit news outlet CalMatters. HOPICS director Veronica Lewis claims the nonprofit was late making rent payments because they were trying to verify that the formerly homeless tenants were actually living in the units assigned to them. Lewis made $261,000 last year.
The consequences of the homeless-industrial complex are visible for all to see: Tents and drug paraphernalia litter the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco. And let’s not forget the caves of Modesto.
As Brittany Bernstein wrote in January:
Authorities in Modesto, Calif., discovered homeless people living in caves along the Tuolumne River over the weekend — and some of the caves were furnished with amenities.
Modesto police and volunteers with Operation 9-2-99 and the Tuolumne River Trust removed an estimated 7,600 pounds of trash from the area, which is about 20 feet below street level and accessible by makeshift stairs built into the hillside. The trash filled two truckloads and a trailer. Recovered items included bedding, belongings, food, items on a makeshift mantel, drugs, and weapons.
"We had a hard time figuring out how they got so much stuff down in there, considering how hard it was to get it up the hill and out," Operation 9-2-99 coordinator Chris Guptill told the local news station.
Modesto police said the area "has been plagued by vagrancy and illegal camps, which have raised concerns due to the fact that these camps were actually caves dug into the riverbanks."
Billions of public dollars, dozens of state programs, hundreds of state-funded nonprofits, and thousands of full-time employees have been thrown at the problem and haven’t made a dent.
How is that possible?
We aim to find out, so keep an eye out for future NR reporting on this topic.
NAME. RANK. LINK.
EDITORIALS
Schumer drags his feet on a pivotal piece of legislation: The Senate Is Failing the TikTok Test
On the former president’s abortion non-position: Trump’s Abortion Hedge
Joe won’t take a judicial “no” for an answer: Biden’s Student-Loan Power Grab
Trump can’t be bothered with the details: Trump's FISA Attack Is Incoherent
ARTICLES
Rich Lowry: No One Cares about Joe Biden's Lawlessness
Rich Lowry: The Lunatic RINO-Hunting of Marjorie Taylor Greene
Ryan Mills: Minneapolis Council Delays Uber, Lyft Driver Pay Hike as Rideshare Apps Prepare to Abandon City
Jim Geraghty: No One Is Acting Like Kennedy Is a Bigger Threat to Trump Than to Biden
Noah Rothman: Trump's Self-Serving Abortion Punt
Dan McLaughlin: Elizabeth Warren Isn't Actually Very Smart
Abigail Anthony: Princeton Democratic Socialists Raise 'Grave Concern' over 'Discriminatory' Gorilla Image Used In a French Class
Abigail Anthony: NHS Report Finds 'Remarkably Weak Evidence' to Support Medical Gender Transition for Minors
David Zimmermann: Vatican Declares Transgender Surgeries, Surrogacy, Gender Theory Threats to Human Dignity
Andrew McCarthy: The Implausibility of Trump's Presidential Records Act Defense
Christian Schneider: When Older Doesn't Mean Wiser
Brad Wenstrup: DEI Is Poisoning American Medical Training
Nina Shea: Russia Is Persecuting Christian Churches in Occupied Ukraine
Jay Nordlinger: Terror-State vs. Civilization
Audrey Fahlberg: Senate Republican Campaign Chief to 2024 Candidates: Don't 'Run Away' from Abortion
Audrey Fahlberg: DeSantis Tells Donors He's Confident Florida's Abortion Ballot Initiative Will Fail
Caroline Downey: Trans-Identifying Man Sues Lawyers Who Represented Sorority Sisters in Case over Male Admission
Brittany Bernstein: The Left's Climate-Nuisance Lawfare Strategy Faces Major Test as Honolulu Sues Oil Giant
Zach Kessel: Stefanik Blasts Harvard for Failure to Discipline Students Who Allegedly Assaulted Israeli Classmate
CAPITAL MATTERS
Kevin Hassett sounds the alarm on the Left’s latest bright idea: Bernie Sanders's Workweek Proposal Is for Real
Andrew Stuttaford, in NR magazine, reminds us what awaits us on the other side of the Green Revolution: The Green Road to Serfdom
LIGHTS. CAMERA. REVIEW.
Armond White deciphers the dystopian message behind the Obama-produced film Leave the World Behind: The Threat/Promise of Obama's Movie Imagination
Brian Allen celebrates the post-Covid rebound in museum attendance: Good News: New Blood at the British Museum
EXCERPTS GALORE
Audrey Fahlberg and Brittany Bernstein explore the implications of Trump’s public break-up with the organized pro-life movement:
The relationship between Donald Trump and the pro-life movement has been on shaky ground for a while now: The former president blamed pro-lifers for Republicans’ lackluster showing in the midterms and then refused to stake out a firm position on the issue during the GOP primary. But what began as coded, quiet bickering between Trump world and pro-life organizations, with both sides trying to avoid entirely alienating the other, exploded into full public view earlier this week as Trump declined to endorse federal abortion restrictions, only to follow up days later by saying the Arizona supreme court went too far in upholding a law that bans nearly all abortions.
"Yeah they did," Trump told reporters at an airport in Georgia earlier today when asked if the Arizona supreme court ruling went "too far." "That’ll be straightened out, and as you know it’s all about states’ rights."
Also on Wednesday, Trump again took credit for helping overturn Roe v. Wade but said he would decline to sign a federal abortion ban if he wins in November.
The comments are likely to further alienate a portion of anti-abortion advocates who already believe that in declining to endorse a nationwide ban and leaving the issue to the states, the GOP's presumptive 2024 nominee has sold the pro-life movement down the river.
One group that falls into that fiercely critical category is Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which has spent the past year lobbying Trump and other GOP candidates to endorse a 15-week federal ban.
"We believe unborn children and their mothers deserve national protection and to be protected from brutal late-term abortion all throughout this country regardless of where you live — whether you're in Texas or you're in California," said Kelsey Pritchard, director of state public affairs for the group.
Other pro-life advocates went even further in their criticism. Former vice president Mike Pence called Trump's Monday remarks a "slap in the face" to the pro-life moment, and South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham — a longtime advocate of a 15-week federal ban who has a complicated relationship with the former president — called Trump's new approach a "mistake."
Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action, went so far as to say that Trump is "not a pro-life candidate," in a statement on Monday. "He's far less pro-abortion than Biden, but he supports killing some preborn children and will even make that his position in an attempt to get pro-abortion votes."
Abigail Anthony reports on a bizarre, hilarious controversy at Princeton University:
The Princeton Young Democratic Socialists of America released an open letter on Monday condemning "discriminatory materials" in the French-language program at Princeton University. A graduate student who was a teaching assistant for the course alleges that his position was jeopardized after he raised concerns to the department and that this "aggravated a general anxiety disorder."
"The materials in question include a slide deck of personal adjectives used for the theme 'classroom and classmates' starting with several silverback gorillas and an image of King Kong, before presenting a picture of former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama," the open letter states. The letter was sent to the chairman of the French and Italian department, as well as the dean of the graduate school and the dean of the faculty.
A photo included in the open letter shows part of a slideshow from a course, French 103: Intensive Beginner’s and Intermediate French, that has photos of gorillas described with different adjectives, such as "grande," "petite," "blonde," and "gentil." After the gorillas are described, there is a slide with a photo of the Obamas with the question "Ils sont mariés?" ("Are they married?")
"The slides as shared with the media are incomplete and were released out of context," a spokesperson for Princeton University told National Review in an email on Tuesday. “The complete set of slides represent two distinct instructional sequences in a language instruction course: one using gorillas and another using human celebrities."
"Princeton's Office of Institutional Equity & Diversity reviewed the slides late last year and found they did not violate the University policy on discrimination and/or harassment and did not warrant an investigation," the spokesperson said. "Still, Princeton's Department of French & Italian acknowledges the slides may have inadvertently caused offense and has taken the entire deck out of use."
The materials "presented without clear educational value" have "deeply offended and caused discomfort" among students, the Princeton Young Democratic Socialists of America wrote. The student organization calls for the Department of French and Italian to "acknowledge and resolve the damage done" by the course materials. The letter has also been signed by student organizations, such as the Princeton College Democrats, the Black Student Union, the Alliance of Jewish Progressives, the Princeton Progressive publication, and Princeton Students for Prison Education, Abolition, and Reform, among other groups.
"In addition, there have been materials including the creation of 'Chinese portraits' which involved self-portraits as animals, instructions for students to debate whether France in the 1950s was more 'ethnically homogenous' than nowadays, and inappropriate jokes involving sexist stereotypes of blonde women’s intelligence," the letter continues.
Twitter is full of angry right-wingers imploring conservative policy-makers, lawmakers, journalists, and activists to adapt the ruthless no-holds-barred tactics of the Left. Dan McLaughlin explains why that’s not such a great idea:
In conflict — whether it be war, litigation, politics, or some other form of contest — you can't answer the question "how shall we fight" without first answering the question "what are we fighting for?" It's not that the ends justify the means (although the ends always inform the justification of means); it's that the ends you seek dictate the means that can help you get there.
Consider: Israel fights in a different way from Hamas for a number of reasons, but a major one is that Israel is fighting to preserve its civilization; Hamas is happy to see everything burn. It approaches war with different goals, and that recommends different means. In the Civil War, the Union was restrained in some ways by its desire to end the war with the whole nation restored, including the South; the Confederacy was restrained in other ways by fighting to preserve slave plantations that would lose their entire enslaved workforce if they fell even temporarily into Union hands.
The same is true in the law. Prosecutors may be more interested in building a large case against a number of defendants, and less in the fate of one individual defendant. That defendant's lawyer is focused entirely on his client, will approach the case differently, and may find ways to exploit the prosecutor's devotion to a broader picture. Similarly, you handle a civil case differently if you're looking to score a big contingency fee, or to make social change through the courts, or to defend a corporate client's bottom line, or to vindicate your client's good name, or to blacken your adversary's public reputation through lawfare. The goals dictate the tactics.
To answer the question "How should conservatives fight?" therefore, we should first ask: What is it that we fight for? What do conservatives, and the Right more broadly, want from politics?
There are a number of answers. The first-order goods that the political Right seeks in any society are to raise and support a family, to practice faith and raise children in that faith, to pursue a livelihood, to keep what we earn and make for our own, and to enjoy the fruits of voluntary civil society. To do those things, we must maintain public order and safety, while clearing sufficient space for individual liberty and private, communal organization to allow people to enjoy that good life free of the domination of the state.
If what you want is family, faith, order, and commerce, you prefer the values of civil discourse and the resolution of disputes by the judgments of elections and written law. These are better means for the Right than continual disruption and street theater because they are the tactics that can coexist with the ends sought. If your aim is to allow people to live — as much as possible — outside of politics and government, and to enjoy their liberties with their families, their churches, and their communities — well, that's not consistent with demanding that they live the 24/7 politicized life. This is why boycotts and the like are so hard to sustain on the right: because people who are involved in politics defensively don't want to make every choice in their life in a political fashion; indeed, they feel that if they are doing so, they have already lost.
Shout-Outs
Dave Weigel, at Semafor: Could two red states keep Joe Biden off the ballot?
Andrew Beaton, at the Wall Street Journal: The Merchant Banker Who Could Win the Masters
CODA
Golf legend Gary Player delivered an awesome tribute to America to kick off the Masters on Thursday. Check it out.
Megyn Kelly -> Pete Hegseth responds to 2017 rape accusation. 🔥 vol. 3, issue 13 | December 6, 2024 Quick Hits All the news you need in...
No comments: