Ran across this article today:

http://news.yahoo.com/stick-poor-congressional-strategy-080500785.html

While I'm not going to question the veracity of this author's numbers, I would like to point out a few things–as a Devil's Advocate–about some of her statements.

The idea is, if you can't pay for your home without government assistance, you don't deserve to live in one. In this spirit, budget cuts due to sequestration will take rental assistance vouchers away from 140,000 low-income families by the beginning of next year, making housing more expensive as agencies raise costs to offset the budget cuts.

This is a reference (through the in-line linked source in her article) to Housing Choice Vouchers which is undergoing sequestration cuts.  The more authoritative article the click-through story is probably talking about is here at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Basically, it's a budget reality issue.  Across the board cuts under sequestration to try and meet the budget limits are provoking agencies to try and make due with lower budgets.  One way is to reduce the number of vouchers and a second is the amount paid out per voucher.  While I'm not going to argue putting people on the street is a good thing, you do have to ask what the alternatives are and what are the likely results if no change is made.

In this case, pulling money into this program necessitates either pulling more money out of other programs (like she laments more on throughout the article) or trying to raise taxes. The irony in this second course is the people most likely to be hit by raised taxes—commercial property owners and businesses—are the same people establishing the rent amounts in the first place.  In other words, one major alternative would probably create a similar problem anyway.

If you're lucky enough to keep your home, don't expect to heat it. Sequester cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) meant that 300,000 low-income families in 2013 were denied government support for energy costs.

The in-line link (included) links through to this article from the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association (NEADA).  The LIHEAP is a major source of "big oil tax subsidies"  which has been a presidential and congressional target since the election of Barack Obama.  Although the story currently is driven by the effects of sequestration, the irony is this program has been in the political gun sights of many liberals for a long time and their success is also their failure in this case.

The recent reduction in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits has affected more than 47 million Americans and is the largest wholesale cut in the program since Congress passed the first Food Stamps Act in 1964.

Two parts to this story.  First is the expiration of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) on 1 November 2013 which was envisioned as a temporary increase during the recession.  That—by itself—is an illustration of a faulty mindset attributing temporary, exceptional measures with a status quo going forward.  The second is the basic food costs covered by SNAP are tied to agriculture subsidies—also under attack—to keep food costs low by helping to offset production and some transportation costs.  Without one (subsidies), the other costs more.

Again, a victim of potential successes.

Generally, the impression I get is one who doesn't understand the money funding these programs is somewhat finite and comes from the people of the United States (and elsewhere, in some cases) directly or indirectly.  Additionally, while it would be nice to be able to provide everything for everyone from a certain perspective, the reality is—sometimes—the best thing you can do for someone is back off and let them solve their problems themselves.

In this case, expecting the Federal government to do it for you is like betting on a racehorse to pull your kid's wagon.  The wagon might get there, but it's highly doubtful it (or your kid) will be in the condition you'd like it to be.