Dehumanization of homeless population causes violence against it, homeless advocate says
May 22—Violence is no stranger to Spokane's homeless population.
Besides Thursday's murder sentencing of Aaron R. Holder, a judge sentenced Steven P. White, 48, last month to 30 years in prison for fatally stabbing 44-year-old Shan Anderson, who was lying on the ground possibly sleeping, more than a dozen times in 2023 in downtown Spokane.
Last month, three teenagers brutally attacked a homeless man on the ground outside the downtown Spokane Public Library, leaving the man with skull fractures and brain bleeding, according to court documents. About 30 minutes later, one of the teens threw an electric scooter at a man sleeping in a sleeping bag on Sprague Avenue and Wall Street, court records show.
Donald Whitehead, executive director at National Coalition for the Homeless, described attacks on homeless people as a "crime of opportunity." Homeless people often don't have ties to the larger community and are not connected to their relatives, so the crimes may go unnoticed or may not be adjudicated in the same manner, he said.
Whitehead said the homeless population is more susceptible to violence because communities push to dissolve encampments, forcing them into isolated locations where they are more prone to be victims of violence.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson that municipalities can criminalize sleeping outdoors on public property because it does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Last month, the Spokane City Council voted to not move forward with reinstating Proposition 1, the voter-approved anti-homeless camping law that the Washington Supreme Court had recently struck down.
Proposition 1 banned camping within 1,000 feet of parks, schools and licensed day care facilities, making violations a misdemeanor offense. The state Supreme Court argued the proposition had gone outside the legal bounds for a local initiative, though it did not make a ruling on the merits of the law, leaving it open for the City Council to reinstate the law, according to previous Spokesman-Review reporting.
Whitehead said many people who attack homeless people view them as less human, a narrative that has ramped up in certain states and led to more attacks on the homeless population. Oregon has one of the highest levels of crimes against unsheltered people, Whitehead said, and attributed it to the negative publicity around the Grants Pass v. Johnson case, noting the direct correlation between dehumanizing homeless people and the violence that's perpetrated upon them.
The Oregonian reported in February 2024 that a growing number of homeless people were being shot and killed in Portland. Five of the 15 homicides at that point in the year in the city involved a homeless person, the publication reported.
Whitehead said he expects the homeless population and violence against it to dramatically increase if President Donald Trump's budget proposal and the reconciliation bill, the latter of which cleared the House this week, are approved.
Trump proposed dramatic cuts to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. That includes eliminating HUD's rental assistance program, including Section 8 vouchers, and allowing states to make their own rental assistance programs instead. The plan would include a two-year cap on rental assistance for able-bodied adults.
Whitehead said the cuts to HUD will make it much harder to get people out of homelessness.
The reconciliation bill proposes several changes to Medicaid, including work requirements for able-bodied adults. Whitehead said medical expenses are one of the reasons people can't afford housing.
The "cascading list of changes" will have negative effects, he said.
"People will die because of these changes," Whitehead said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk caps off DOGE exit by leaving Trump and Johnson unpleasant parting gift
Elon Musk departed Washington this week, bringing one of the weirdest sagas in the history of the presidency to a close. Not everyone leaves DC with their reputation intact. But most people manage to get through it without their bladder control abilities making it into a New York Times exposé. So ends the Elon show. On Sunday, Washington saw its last gasp — a final, awkward sitdown between Musk and CBS Sunday Morning. Despite an awkward attempt by Musk to change the terms of the interview last-minute and bar any mention of politics, he answered questions about the end of DOGE and the budget reconciliation plan endorsed by Donald Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson and the majority of House Republicans. In his interview, Musk made it clear he hadn't gotten the memo that Johnson and other Republicans want their caucus to lie about the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score, which the speaker and others are now unconvincingly pretending is a group of liberal activists. Meanwhile, conservatives in their own caucus — the same deficit hawks who held Johnson to cuts of nearly $1 trillion affecting Medicaid — continue to cite the CBO's methodology as they hammer Johnson and their colleagues for insufficient deficit spending cuts. Musk's comments on that budget bill, released in the lead-up to CBS's interview last week, set off a firestorm in Washington. There was an obvious reason: Musk, in one fell swoop, undermined the entirety of the budget plan and essentially made Johnson out to be a liar — if you believe Musk, who no longer has a reason to play nice in Washington. "I was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, doesn't decrease it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,' Musk told CBS News. Musk's demeanor was similar to the eyebrow-raising performance he delivered during his final press conference this week with Donald Trump — when he seemed visibly distracted by the gold ornamentation of the room and stood in a decidedly odd manner next to the (literally) sitting president of the United States. "I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful," he went on. "But I don't know if it could be both. My personal opinion." Oops. With that quote, Musk did damage that was still being felt on Sunday, when the rest of his interview aired. At practically the same moment that his comments were re-broadcast, Speaker Mike Johnson was facing an uncomfortable grilling from NBC's Meet the Press about the bill and whether it cut the deficit significantly, or even at all. "I sent my good friend Elon a long text message explaining it can be big and beautiful," Johnson claimed. He repeated his insistence that the bill is 'not going to add to the debt' during his own interview, despite the CBO's outlook. Certainly, the guy who brought the motto 'move fast and break things' to Washington is going to read that text. Regardless of how that particular conversation turns out, the damage is done. Johnson's problem is simple: his own caucus does not believe his insistence about the 'big, beautiful bill' being deficit-neutral. Why should anyone else? Johnson wishes it were as simple as convincing Americans (and the media) that Democrats are the only ones opposed to his deficit math. In reality, some of the staunchest debt hawks in Washington — all conservatives — are in the same camp. If one needs proof, they can simply ask Chip Roy, one of the leaders of those debt hawks. Roy, in his final statement about the bill's passage in May, explained that he voted for the bill to achieve deficit cuts — but even he lamented that the bill did not go further in that regard. 'The good news is that the bill technically held true to that framework by yielding modest deficit reduction over a 10-year budget window,' said Roy. 'Importantly, it does this by cutting spending $1.5 trillion over 10 years, reforming programs like Medicaid and SNAP with work requirements.' It should be obvious, but just to be clear: 'modest deficit reduction' does not equal a budget that is deficit-neutral. The 'one big, beautiful bill' is still projected to add nearly $4 trillion to the deficit after those cuts, according to the CBO and other analysts. This offhand comment from Musk won't make his life any harder. He returns to Tesla, now bearing the brunt of a stunning drop in profits tied directly to his political activism. By doing so, he exits an unfamiliar arena: Washington, a place where public perception matters and can change on a dime. It will, however, make things a lot harder for Johnson and Senate Republican leadership, the latter of whom will now oversee the bill's fate for the next month. Already, Republicans are talking about changing the bill — including, potentially, by splitting 'one' big beautiful bill into several. Those Senate Republicans only acquired more ammunition to defy the White House and Johnson on Sunday. One of those Republicans is Ron Johnson, who, like his conservative allies in the House, has been one of the most vocal deficit spending watchdogs in Congress. Even before Musk's latest comments, Johnson was publicly prepared to buck the White House over the bill's price tag. After Sunday, the combination of the Musk interview and the Senate's hair-thin margin may give him all the political cover he needs. 'Republican leaders repeatedly say, 'We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem,'' Johnson tweeted before the bill passed the House. 'Right now, it doesn't appear that they are willing to fix it.' 'I am going to insist that we do,' he warned.
USA Today
13 hours ago
- USA Today
'It's completely unsustainable': Republican lawmaker doubles down, knocks Trump tax bill
'It's completely unsustainable': Republican lawmaker doubles down, knocks Trump tax bill Show Caption Hide Caption Elon Musk 'disappointed' with Trump's tax bill Elon Musk told CBS he is 'disappointed' with President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, is doubling down on his concerns about a bill that would make sweeping changes to taxes, Medicaid, food stamps and more after it was passed last month in the Republican-led House at the urging of President Donald Trump. The more-than-1,000-page bill narrowly cleared the lower chamber on May 22. Now, it faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where some conservatives have raised concerns about the legislation's cost. "It's completely unsustainable," Johnson said in an interview on Fox's "Sunday Morning Futures." The bill is expected to add somewhere around $3 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years and swell the federal government's debt. Still, the legislation would enact Trump's major campaign promises like eliminating taxes on workers' tips and overtime. It's likely to be one of the most significant pieces of legislation that will be passed during his second term in the Oval Office. Bartiromo on June 1 pressed Johnson on whether he was prepared to "blow up President Trump's agenda." "I want to see him succeed," Johnson said in response. "But again, my loyalty is to the American people, to my kids and grandkids. We cannot continue to mortgage their future." Johnson has repeatedly called for the federal government to return to pre-pandemic levels of spending and said he was disappointed the House bill didn't go further in reducing the government's debt. Asked what the solution is, Johnson told Fox, "DOGE showed us how to do it. Contract by contract, line by line." Trump's billionaire former adviser Elon Musk recently ended his tenure leading the Department of Government Efficiency. While the department has played a major role cutting into the federal bureaucracy, a longtime priority for the president, it hasn't come up with the bulk of the $2 trillion savings Musk had promised to deliver while on the campaign trail. Musk said in a May 27 interview with CBS he was "disappointed" by the Trump-led tax bill. 'I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don't know if it can be both. My personal opinion,' Musk said. Johnson's comments to Fox echo what he said a week earlier in an interview with CNN. The Wisconsin senator told anchor Jake Tapper he believed there were enough Senate Republicans who opposed the bill to hold up any potential vote. "I think we have enough to stop the process until the president gets serious about the spending reduction and reducing the deficit," Johnson said May 25. Contributing: Riley Beggin
CNBC
13 hours ago
- CNBC
Trump advisers defend tariffs amid legal fight, insisting they're 'not going away'
President Donald Trump's top economic advisers maintained confidence on Sunday that the "tariffs are not going away," as a key tenet of Trump's policy agenda hangs in legal limbo. "Rest assured, tariffs are not going away," Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on "Fox News Sunday," days after a federal court ruled that Trump overstepped his authority when he imposed the sweeping duties. A federal appeals court later granted the Trump administration's request to temporarily pause the ruling, giving the White House some breathing room, but officials now stare down a potentially arduous legal battle. The looming legal fight, which could ultimately wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, injects uncertainty into Trump's tariff plan, which has upended the global economy in the weeks since his initial April 2 announcement of so-called reciprocal tariffs. Trump's advisers insist, however, that the tariffs will stay in place in the face of the legal challenges — or the administration will find new ways to implement them. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Sunday that he is "very confident" that the judges on the nation's top court would back Trump's tariffs. "We are very confident that the judges will uphold this law. And so I think that's Plan A. And we're very, very confident that Plan A is all we're ever going to need," he said on ABC News' "This Week." But he added that if the tariffs are blocked, "we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make America trade fair again," without giving specifics on what that route would look like. "There's all these laws that your listeners don't want to listen to that are alternative ways to pursue what we're doing," he said. The U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked Trump's tariffs, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump invoked to impose the tariffs, does not authorize a president to levy universal duties on imports. To justify the tariffs, Trump said that the "large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits" constituted a national emergency. The Trump administration swiftly appealed the ruling, and a federal appeals court granted their request for a temporary stay. It's not clear how the nation's highest court would eventually rule on Trump's tariffs, but it is not a given that the conservative-majority Supreme Court would automatically side with the president, POLITICO reports. The White House has argued that a court ruling overturning Trump's tariffs would undermine his negotiating leverage with other nations. "A ruling that narrows IEEPA would have ripple effects across every domain in which economic instruments are used for strategic effect," Lutnick said during a deposition last month. Trump said Sunday: "If the Courts somehow rule against" the U.S. on tariffs, it would "allow other Countries to hold our Nation hostage with their anti-American Tariffs that they would use against us." "This would mean the Economic ruination of the United States of America!" he wrote on Truth Social.
