I am trying to understand. Apparently all the discussion has been unable to make our case quite clearly. Is it the circumstance, in the gentleman's opinion, if a working family is in public housing today and mom is at home, and they somehow make arrangements to get child care, and mom leaves and takes on a new job, so the income of the family may go up to $1,200 or $1,500 a month, they have to pay for day care, but that does not matter when we look at the 30-percent rule, that that then applies to both new incomes; so rather than mom go out and work and pay for day care, mom just stays home. Is that what the gentleman is saying?
Richard Baker: “I am trying to understand. Apparently all the discussion has been unable to make our case quite clearly. Is it the…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the implications of income changes for families in public housing.
Share
More from Richard Baker
We are characterizing local public housing authorities across this country as people who do not care about those people. By and large, are not most of these individuals who serve on these authorities either very low paid or volunteers…
I truly do not believe we could have prevented it, but we could have prevented the financial meltdown that we are in today with better regulation and more responsible oversight.
Does the gentleman mean these people are telling us if somebody goes to work they want them to be able to keep the money?
Does that mean, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that if we keep the current system in place, we discourage people from getting job skills and going to work and maybe one day moving out of public housing? Is that the problem?





