Eliminating the HOME Program



I decided to focus on a current event that I read online about Donald Trump attempting to cut the budget. His way of reducing spending revolves around the idea of eliminating “lower priority” programs. One program that is considered “lower priority” according to the president, is the HOME Investment Partnerships Programs. The purpose of HOME is to assist in funding buying, building, and repairing homes for rent or for home ownership.

In an article written by the New York Times titled, “In Ohio County That Backed Trump, Word of Housing Cuts Stirs Fear,” Yamiche Alcindor writes about a family who currently relies on the HOME program. Joseph and Tammy Pavlic were living on a salary of $9,000 to support them and their three kids in 2015. They accessed HOME and were able to repair all the cracks and areas that needed repairing to once again feel safe in their home. Last year, the Pavlics voted for Donald Trump. The president has plans to reduce spending in the Department of Housing and Urban Development which will eliminate partnerships such as HOME, energy efficiency aid, and heating and air conditioning aid. He will then allocate these funds to the military and to building a wall. There is a big difference in the way Joseph and Tammy view the situation. Joseph says that the country’s safety clearly has more importance than the condition of his house. However, Tammy believes that the safety of her own home is more important than anything for her family. I started to question safety when I read this. If we protect our nation from a military standpoint but can’t even feel safe in our home, are we really protecting our citizens?

Later in the article, I read about how the budget cuts would reduce spending by about $6.2 billion. Upon further research I found out that military spending is about $600 billion. So when these HUD programs are cut, military spending will increase by about 1%. I don’t believe that this 1% will make any adjustments to the military that will drastically increase our power. We are taking away from those who rely on aid, and thus increasing the number of those individuals that face poverty in our society. As we learned in class, most people spend most of their money towards housing. These government programs reduce this cost and allow people to spend on other necessities.

Some people rely on these aid programs such as Amber Barr and William Brown. Amber Barr is a single mother recovering from an abusive relationship, alcoholism, STD treatment, and anxiety. William Brown had to stop working due to a heart attack that got him laid off. These two individuals both rely on disability check and housing assistance. It is harder for these two to find jobs due to their background, and the cuts will move them out of their current homes.

By learning about how programs such as HOME save those who are in need of assistance, I start to question budget cuts. What other ways will budget cuts in HUD affect people?

For Further Reading:


Unpacking the ‘Housing Issue’, ,


  1. “I started to question safety when I read this. If we protect our nation from a military standpoint but can’t even feel safe in our home, are we really protecting our citizens?”

    This sentence really hit home the context of the article. The reduction in the budget of many vital departments of the USA is a big mandate for the Trump Administration. What’s the point in having hundreds of Apache helicopters if our people don’t have access to healthcare, fair wages, benefits, affordable housing, affordable education and environmental protection (just to name a scant few). The HOME program in New York state serves to provide affordable housing repair to many of the state’s needy citizens, particularly targeting homes with incomes at or below 60% of the median area income (which is an important features as incomes will differ in parts of the state). I wholly agree with your point that there is little to no reason to barely buttress the military presence ; the funding should be kept where it is.

  2. It is honestly a difficult situation to try to sympathize with, which is my fault from knowing their political party of choice. So I must picture this is an issue happening to any family in need. There is no need to cut the budget for the HOME program, many people from different corners of the country benefit from it, and it has helped them stay in a certain standard of living. Cut a whole program for a 1% increase towards the military simply just sounds inhumane. Many people will live in unlivable conditions, just so the country can have more “safety” by building a wall.

  3. I definitely agree that government spending priorities are limiting resources for the poor. In regard to the 1% increase towards military supplies, I believe it is unnecessary to do so when it only hurts the people the military is trying to protect. Strengthening and uplifting people’s lives on the home front is most important. This is especially important with the division of people occurring today. These changes could greatly affect the lives of those who rely on such programs for suitable housing and maintenance. Just as Shevin mentioned, other budget cuts have been made that only decrease the opportunities and resources for people to have a better quality of life. This shows that other programs to help those in need are also in danger of budget cuts.

  4. When you said “I started to question safety when I read this. If we protect our nation from a military standpoint but can’t even feel safe in our home, are we really protecting our citizens?” that is exactly what was going through my mind while I was reading about this situation. What I fail to understand about politics is where is the statistics of the criminalization of Mexican immigrants? He claims he’s building this wall for public safety but I thought I lived in a pretty safe country already (maybe now not so much considering his intervention in Syria). Military is already a huge portion of the national budget so this makes me question if he plans on increasing the budget because he plans on going to war. This joke of a presidency hopefully will enlighten people in the future and hopefully we won’t make the same mistake again.

  5. after read, I agree with you said that is not necessary “to reduce spending in the Department of Housing and Urban Development” for the builds the wall. even though government meaning that builds the wall for safety, but I do not think that is safe. I think it would be a waste of taxpayers money to build the wall. however, the purpose of building the wall is preventing Mexican immigrants. I feel it is not necessary to spend a lot of money on the wall. I believe it more like discrimination.

  6. I definitely agree with Xenophontos’s article. I think we should all be safe in an individual stand first and then we worry about what can we do with our military. The sad thing about this government spending reductions is that all the reductions that are happening or that are planned are cutting out Food stamps which help low-income households with their daily nutrition, Medicare which provides health insurance for over 55 million—46 million people age 65 and older and nine million younger people and hundreds of more programs are getting cut by this “Budget reduction” by President Trump. I’m a strong supporter of our military and I think there have to be more help and programs for them but we also have to know that we spend almost 1.5 million daily on our U.S Army which is nuts to me. It sounds so crazy when our government tries to protect the country but at the same time, he’s not protecting his people. Really nice article and research.

  7. Xenophontos, I agree with you on the fact that the removing HOME programs is very much increasing the number of people who are and will experience poverty. While the government is financially benefitting the military force, more people are suffering from barely not being to obtain homes or not being able to fix the resources of and actual homes of low-income homeowners. The fact that military spending will increase by only 1% is totally a problem and just unrealistic. If the government can decide to even increase it by 1%, then why not do the same for HOME programs, even if only by a little percentage? This just shows how many individuals will continue to live with less availability of resources and aid as their living situations will only worsen. If President Trump or the government makes choices to disregard and lessen the importance of the HOME programs, then what authority, which there isn’t any else in the U.S., will actually reasonably spend and promote these programs? Removing HOME programs will only increase racial and social separation and decrease the citizens’ trust in the government in regards to their necessities.

  8. Your post has a lot of great points that I agree with. The line “If we protect our nation from a military standpoint but can’t even feel safe in our home, are we really protecting our citizens?” really stands out. I feel like that is the feeling that a majority of people are feeling in our country right now. As Trump focuses more on building our military and the wall he neglects what really matters, American Citizens. He is doing so much to keep people out of our country that he abandons those in it that rely on aid. Instead of all the money going into these other frivolous projects we should work to build more careers and strengthen welfare. So many people in our country are homeless, hungry, unable to pay rent, unable to fix their homes,etc . It’s so sad to see that instead of helping them, our government is taking away from them, making them feel forgotten and hopeless about their situations.

Comments are closed.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet