NYC - January Tally of Homeless Found a 13% Rise in the City

November 21, 2013

January Tally of Homeless Found a 13% Rise in the City

By MIREYA NAVARRO

New York City’s homeless population increased by 13 percent at the beginning of this year as it continued to buck a national trend, new federal statistics show.

Homelessness, especially among families, has been growing in the city even as the local economy has recovered, and the new data underscores the challenges facing the mayor-elect, Bill de Blasio, who made affordable housing a centerpiece of his campaign.

Nationwide, the number of homeless people dropped by 4 percent from 2012, to 610,042 from 633,782. according to the data, which were released on Thursday by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Homelessness among veterans and some other groups registered notable reductions.

The numbers come from HUD’s annual survey of more than 3,000 cities and counties. On one night in January per locality, field workers tally the number of people living in emergency shelters, transitional housing and locations such as cars and abandoned buildings.

In a conference call with reporters, the department’s secretary, Shaun Donovan, said the one-night snapshot showed a “remarkable” drop in national homeless numbers in recent years given the economic downturn. He credited the collaboration among 19 federal agencies in tackling the problem.

But the story is different in New York and Los Angeles, which showed large increases in homelessness.

In New York, where the shelter population has reached levels not seen since the Depression era, the count in January estimated 64,060 homeless people in shelters and on the street in January 2013, or 13 percent more than in January 2012. Among large cities, only Los Angeles had a larger percentage increase. Its homeless population rose by 27 percent, although its total of 53,798 was lower than New York’s.

Federal officials said the increases were driven by a rise in families who could no longer pay their rent, a problem that is more acute in areas where affordable housing is scarce and rents are especially high. The group of very poor renters who pay more than half their income in rent and are struggling to hold onto their homes has grown by 43 percent nationwide since 2007, housing officials said.

Across the country, nearly a quarter of all homeless people, 23 percent, are under 18.

The administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg set out to make a significant dent in homelessness with an overhaul of policies in the mid-2000s. But instead, the city’s shelters are packed, with more than 50,000 people relying on them. Mr. de Blasio has promised to reverse course by restoring the preference given to homeless families for a portion of public housing apartments and rental subsidies. He has also vowed to negotiate with the state and HUD to create a new rent subsidy program.

Federal officials said the improved national picture was partly driven by a drop in the number of homeless people counted on the streets; the shelter population was actually up by 1 percent nationwide. Bloomberg administration officials noted in a statement that relatively few New York homeless people lived on the street compared with those in other major cities.

“Given our legal mandate to provide safe, temporary emergency shelter to all eligible families and individuals in need every night, we meet this mission successfully, while other cities around the country are putting up ‘no vacancy’ signs and turning families to the streets and to live in cars,” the city’s Department of Homeless Services said in a statement.

But it may get worse before it gets better. Dennis P. Culhane, a professor of social policy at the University of Pennsylvania who helped direct the research in the HUD report on homelessness, said that while the current government programs were having an effect, further progress was not guaranteed.

He pointed to the prospect of many service members’ leaving the military, as well as prison reforms that are leading to the release of some offenders. Mr. Donovan sounded an alarm about further budget cuts by Congress.

“We cannot balance our budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society,” he said. “It is simply wrong, but it’s also fiscally foolish.”

In Miami Gardens, store video catches cops in the act

 

Earl Sampson, an employee of 207 Quickstop in Miami Gardens, exits the store to take out the garbage. After he walks back inside, he is arrested -- for trespassing.

• Video catches cops in the act - Video 1
• Video catches cops in the act - Video 2
• Video catches cops in the act - Video 3
• Video catches cops in the act - Video 4
• Video catches cops in the act - Video 5

• Photos

BY JULIE K. BROWN

JBROWN@MIAMIHERALD.COM

Earl Sampson has been stopped and questioned by Miami Gardens police 258 times in four years.

He’s been searched more than 100 times. And arrested and jailed 56 times.

Despite his long rap sheet, Sampson, 28, has never been convicted of anything more serious than possession of marijuana.

Miami Gardens police have arrested Sampson 62 times for one offense: trespassing.

Almost every citation was issued at the same place: the 207 Quickstop, a convenience store on 207th Street in Miami Gardens.

But Sampson isn’t loitering. He works as a clerk at the Quickstop.

So how can he be trespassing when he works there?

It’s a question the store’s owner, Alex Saleh, 36, has been asking for more than a year as he watched Sampson, his other employees and his customers, day after day, being stopped and frisked by Miami Gardens police. Most of them, like Sampson, are poor and black.

And, like Sampson, many of them have been cited for minor infractions, sometimes as often as three times in the same day.

Saleh was so troubled by what he saw that he decided to install video cameras in his store. Not to protect himself from criminals, because he says he has never been robbed. He installed the cameras — 15 of them — he said, to protect him and his customers from police.

Since he installed the cameras in June 2012 he has collected more than two dozen videos, some of which have been obtained by the Miami Herald. Those tapes, and Sampson’s 38-page criminal history — including charges never even pursued by prosecutors — raise some troubling questions about the conduct of the city’s police officers.

The videos show, among other things, cops stopping citizens, questioning them, aggressively searching them and arresting them for trespassing when they have permission to be on the premises; officers conducting searches of Saleh’s business without search warrants or permission; using what appears to be excessive force on subjects who are clearly not resisting arrest and filing inaccurate police reports in connection with the arrests.

“There is just no justifying this kind of behavior,’’ said Chuck Drago, a former police officer and consultant on police policy and the use of force. “Nobody can justify overstepping the constitution to fight crime.”

Repeated phone messages and emails to Miami Gardens Police Chief Matthew Boyd and City Manager Cameron Benson asking for comment on this story were not returned.

Boyd did release a statement, saying that the department is committed to serving and protecting the citizens and businesses in the city.

But Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union Florida, said that’s exactly what Boyd is NOT doing.

“Where is the police chief in all this? In a police department in a city this size, this kind of behavior could not escape his attention. Doesn’t the City Commission know that they are exposing the city to either massive liability for civil rights violations? Either that, or they are going to wake up one day and find the U.S. Department of Justice has taken over its police department.’’

Salah and his attorney, Steve Lopez, are preparing to file a federal civil rights lawsuit, contending that the police department has routinely, under the direction of the city’s top leaders, directed its officers to conduct racial profiling, illegal stops and searches and other activities to cover up illegal misconduct.

CITY’S STRUGGLES

Miami Gardens, incorporated 10 years ago, has struggled with gang violence, drug crime and shooting sprees that have claimed the lives of many innocent people. Just this year, a 12-year-old girl was killed in a hail of bullets and a retired minister and her grandson were slain in an execution-style murder.

While overall crime has declined in recent years, murders have more than doubled, according to state crime figures. Residents haven’t sat idly. For years they have demanded change. They’ve led anti-violence crusades, crime-fighting rallies and town-hall meetings to draw attention to the city’s crime problem.

With a population of 109,000 people, Miami Gardens is the third largest city in Miami -Dade. It’s population is predominantly black. Its citizens have voiced their distrust of the police department over the years on a number of fronts, noting that officers — many of them white and Hispanic — seldom leave their patrol cars except to make an arrest.

Boyd and other top commanders have, in the past, insisted in order to quell violence, they need the community to cooperate and help them root out suspects.

“The real problem here,’’ Drago said, “is the police department does not have a relationship with its community — black or white. When they make these kinds of stops for minor offenses, it only re-enforces the mistrust.’’

Saleh, whose store is tucked between a public park and working-class neighborhoods, contends that Miami Gardens police officers have repeatedly used racial slurs to refer to his customers and treat most of them like they are hardened criminals.

“Police line them up and tell them to put their hands against the wall. I started asking myself ‘Is this normal?’ I just kept thinking police can’t do this,’’ Saleh said.

Last year, Saleh, armed with a cache of videos, filed an internal affairs complaint about the arrests at his store. From that point, he said, police officers became even more aggressive.

One evening, shortly after he had complained a second time, a squadron of six uniformed Miami Gardens police officers marched into the store, he says. They lined up, shoulder to shoulder, their arms crossed in front of them, blocking two grocery aisles.

“Can I help you?” Saleh recalls asking. It was an entire police detail, known as the department’s Rapid Action Deployment (RAD) squad, whom he had come to know from their frequent arrest sweeps. One went to use the restroom, and five of them stood silently for a full 10 minutes. Then they all marched out.

Boyd, who is black, said earlier this year that headlines of killings and shootings in Miami Gardens overshadow the gains his department has made since the city established its police department in 2007.

“Rest assured that our department is fully committed to complying with the laws that govern us,’’ Boyd said in his written statement emailed to the Herald Wednesday. He added that he was also committed to “exceeding the expectations of those that rely on us, and providing the best possible service to the residents of this great City.’’

‘LIKE FAMILY’

For 17 years, Saleh has owned 207 Quickstop. Saleh has come to know his customers by their first names, and even by their nicknames. He has watched some of them grow from toddlers into young men. He feels for them when loved ones die, and has celebrated with them when their babies were born.

“To me, these people are like family,’’ said Saleh, a native of Venezuela who is of Palestinian descent.

About three years ago, Saleh said police asked him to participate in what they called a “zero-tolerance” program to reduce crime. He gladly signed up, not realizing at the time how much it would impact his business and customers. Under the program, Miami Gardens police are given broad powers to stop and arrest people who appear to be loitering or trespassing at the participating business.

The idea behind the program is based on the “broken window theory,’’ a concept that has been employed by police around the country. The theory holds that a community that rids itself of petty crime, such as shoplifting, vandalism and trespassing, can eradicate more serious crime because criminals won’t have anywhere to hide.

Drago said the idea does work — but only if a police department has built a good relationship with its residents.

“There’s a lot of groundwork that has to be laid with the community before you start sweeping,’’ he said.

Almost immediately after Saleh put the “zero-tolerance” sign in his window, he regretted it.

Miami Gardens police officers, he said, began stopping his patrons regularly, citing them for minor infractions such as trespassing, or having an open container of alcohol. The officers, he said, would then pat them down or stick their hands in citizens’ pockets. But what bothered Saleh the most was the emboldened behavior of the officers who came into his store unannounced, searched his store without his permission and then hauled his employees away in the middle of their shifts. He finally told them he no longer wanted to participate in the program and removed the sign.

The officers, however, continued their surveillance of his store over his objections. The officers even put the sign back on his store against his wishes, he said.

One video, recorded on June 26, 2012, shows Sampson, clearly stocking coolers, being interrupted by MGPD Sgt. William Dunaske, who orders him to put his hands behind his back, and then handcuffs him, leads him out of the store and takes him to jail for trespassing.

More than once, Saleh has told police that Sampson is an employee and is not trespassing.

On that June arrest report, obtained by The Herald, police explained the trespass arrest, saying that Sampson was arrested for loitering outside the store when in fact the video, which has a date and time stamp, clearly shows him being handcuffed and arrested inside the store.

FDLE records show that Sampson was stopped at least once a week for the past four years, and sometimes several times a week and even as many as three times in one day. The stops are often conducted by the same police officers, who have arrested him time and time again.

“I never felt they had any probable cause,’’ Sampson said. “They hop out of the car and search me before they even ask me for my name.’’

Saleh theorizes that it’s an easy way for the department to make it seem like they are making a large number of arrests.

“They have specialized units to combat crime and they need to bring in the numbers to justify those units,’’ Saleh said.

Said Sampson: “We have people shooting, killing, robberies. This is really ridiculous that they spend so much time arresting people for trespassing.’’

Another employee, Ron Picart, was arrested for illegal possession of a firearm. The case was never filed by the state attorney because the officer, Dunaske, found the firearm under the store’s counter during an illegal search, which was video recorded.

BEER AND FOOTBALL

On a typical weekday afternoon, the Quickstop’s front door squeaks incessantly, as customers wander in and out. They buy snacks, like pickled pigs feet and potato chips, grab a beer or two, and stop to chat with Saleh. Few of them own cars, and usually walk or ride a bicycle.

Some stand in front of the store’s television and talk about football as they sip coffee. Others do their business and are in and out. In the parking lot, a few of them are drinking beer out of paper bags.

Since Saleh has served notice that he is going to sue the city, Sampson hasn’t been arrested, and police are not as active in the store’s parking lot.

But Saleh is mindful of his David vs. Goliath battle with the city’s police department. He worries about his safety, and carries a licensed firearm.

In December, Saleh was followed out of his parking lot by a Miami Gardens police officer, who stopped him after a few blocks. The officer, Carlos Velez, said he stopped Saleh because his tag light was out.

Two other squad cars arrived at the scene, bringing the total number of officers on the scene to six. A police dashboard camera captured it all.

“I thought, you know, there is a lot of serious crime in Miami Gardens,’’ Saleh said. “Why do they need six police officers on a car stop with a burned-out tag light?’’

Another officer, Eddo Trimino, approached Saleh’s passenger side, opened the door and removed a gun that was in a bag containing the store’s money, Saleh said. They ran a check on the gun, which Saleh was licensed to carry.

They cited him for having a bad tag light, tinted windows and bald tires.

Before leaving, the unit’s then-sergeant, Martin Santiago, allegedly told Saleh:

“I’m going to get you mother-f-----,’’

The next day, Saleh viewed video of his truck as it pulled out of the parking lot the night before.

His tag light was working.

Simon called Miami Gardens’ approach of “selective enforcement’’ a clear violation of civil rights.

“Unfortunately, this being done all across Florida and the country,’’ Simon said.

“I have to say congratulations to the owner of the convenience store for recognizing this is not acceptable and having the courage to stand up and challenge it.’’

Miami Herald staff writer Lance Dixon contributed to this story.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/21/v-fullstory/3769823/in-miami-gardens-store-video-catches.html#storylink=cpy

The world’s leading filibuster expert on what happened today and what to expect next.

By Dylan Matthews, Published: November 21 at 4:24 pmE-mail the writer

Gregory Koger is an associate professor of political science at the University of Miami. He has written numerous articles about the filibuster, and literally wrote the book on the subject. We talked on the phone Thursday afternoon; a lightly edited transcript follows.

So, uh, big day for you huh?

[Laughs] Once upon a time, even my fellow Congress scholars said, "That's kind of a stupid topic, who cares about how a simple majority could hypothetically change the rules of the Senate?"

What did you make of the specific way in which the filibuster for nominees was abolished?

In a paper I'm writing with Sergio Campos, we lay out five illustrative options for how a majority could work its will. It's not exhaustive, because there are dozens of ways you could do this. What the Democrats did today was our option four. You bring up something, have a cloture vote, and after you lose say, "It takes a simple majority to win this one." We're not the only people who had this idea but we did anticipate this possibility.

The change was limited to executive nominations and non-Supreme Court executive nominations. How did that limitation come about? Who decided upon it?

It was in the nature of the objection that Harry Reid raised in the first place. They had the floor debate on the nominee, and the cloture vote, and then the chair's decision is announced that cloture was not invoked, and Harry Reid raises his objection to the ruling of the chair and says he objects because it only takes a simple majority to invoke cloture on all executive nominations, and all judicial nominations except the Supreme Court. So the "rule" is articulated by the objection he's raising, and the only reason that it [SCOTUS nominations] was carved out is that Harry Reid said so.

So there's nothing stopping someone in the future from raising an objection and saying cloture can be invoked on all judicial nominations, including the Supreme Court, in the future.

Or doing that for legislation.

Ezra's conclusion was that this means that the next time a big piece of legislation faces a filibuster, the whole thing is gone. Do you agree?

My point all along has been that a simple majority can achieve this sort of reform whenever you want to.

The question is whether a majority would stick together on the floor to further restrict obstruction. I would guess that some Democratic senators would not vote the same way on restricting filibusters against legislation. I can imagine, actually, a filibuster against a Supreme Court nominee being broken this way. But I'd note that, in the past, it hasn't been necessary. Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a 52 to 48 vote, which means Democrats could have filibustered him but chose not to. If there was a similarly controversial nominee in the future, I would guess he or she might also pass with 50 votes.

A lot of the frustration you hear from Democrats on the Hill isn't about filibusters per se but about the use of procedure as a stalling tactic: you filibuster both the underlying nomination and the motion to proceed to the nomination, you wait a day or two for a cloture motion to "ripen," etc. Does this change that at all?

Not directly. It is possible that Democrats frustrated enough to vote for reform today might also be frustrated enough to adopt further reforms without completely eliminating the right to filibuster.

But it's hard to make fine-tuned reforms. If you're coming up with procedural arguments, it's easier to come up with arguments to completely get rid of filibustering than to come up with parliamentary justifications for tweaking the rules to, say, shorten the ripening period. It's not easy to come up with convincing rationales for small tweaks, though honestly, a simple majority can do it if they want to.

Well, Reid didn't seem to present a principled rationale for limiting the change to non-SCOTUS nominees, so that might not be an impediment.

Right, as he was doing it, at least, there wasn't any of that chin music. It was, "Here's what we want to do and we're going to vote on it."

I suppose you could think of one if you had to, though.

Indeed. The case for executive nominees would be, "You can't elect a president and then keep him from having his own team in place." For judicial nominees, you can't make exactly the same argument but can use roughly the same reason.

Anything else notable about how this went down?

One minor note is that the Republicans didn't seem to fight very hard against it. If you go back to 1975, when there was an effort to rule the Senate was not a continuing body and change the rules by a simple majority, there was one senator from Alabama, James Allen, who fought the reformers tooth and nail, raising all kinds of complex procedural obstacles to it. Today's fight was over in an hour and a half, total. McConnell called for a revote, but there was no attempt to drag it out, which was interesting.

If nothing else, today seems to have killed the idea that you can only change the rules by majority vote on day one.

Personally, I appreciate that. I thought it was a needless straightjacket. It was an excuse for other senators not to think about this for the rest of the Congress.

Oregon man held on $5 million bail in bombing of prosecutor's office

BY TERESA CARSON

PORTLAND, Oregon Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:20pm EST

0 COMMENTS

(Reuters) - A man charged with bombing a prosecutor's office in southwestern Oregon last week was ordered held on $5 million bail on Thursday, in a case police said was being investigated as an act of domestic terrorism.

The suspect, Alan Leroy McVay, 46, was arrested on Wednesday and has been charged with manufacturing and possessing a destructive device as well arson, burglary and criminal mischief, the Jackson County District Attorney's Office said.

He is accused of planting a bomb, made from a propane gas tank rigged to a detonator, which exploded in flames outside the district attorney's office last Wednesday in the town of Medford, about 475 miles south of Portland near the California border.

The force of the pre-dawn blast blew out windows and slightly damaged the outside of the single-story brick building, but no one was hurt. The fire went out on its own and the 7-gallon propane canister remained mostly intact.

Medford Police Chief Tim George said afterward that he considered the bombing an act of domestic terrorism, and investigators said they were looking for possible ties to a number of cases the district attorney was prosecuting.

McVay "has pending charges unrelated to this incident that are being prosecuted by the Jackson County District Attorney's Office," that office said in a statement. Authorities have declined to discuss a possible motive for the attack.

The bombing also is under review by the U.S. Attorney's Office for possible federal prosecution. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Portland confirmed this but declined to comment further.

In addition to the Medford police, the FBI, Oregon State Police, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Jackson County Sheriff's office have been involved in the investigation.

McVay was arrested without incident in the parking lot of a pizza restaurant in nearby White City, prosecutors said.

He initially was jailed on $1 million bail, but his bond was raised to $5 million by a judge and a preliminary hearing in the case was set for November 29, according to Chief Deputy District Attorney Jeremy Markiewicz.

Screwing poor people in Michigan: Effects of Republicans delaying Medicaid expansion starting to be felt

by Eclectablog on NOVEMBER 20, 2013 in MICHIGAN REPUBLICANS, REPUBLICAN-FAIL

Remember this number: 94.3%

Michigan Republicans love to pass laws with “immediate effect”. It avoids the whole “gotta wait until 90 days after the close of the current legislative session” thing and the laws they pass go into effect immediately. They love it so much that, when I last did my analysis in early September, they had passed 94.3% of legislation sent to Governor Snyder to be signed in to law with immediate effect.

That’s a pretty good record.

It looks like this:

But, as we all are painfully aware, they simply could not bring themselves to pass Medicaid expansion with immediate effect. This resulted in two major issues. First, it’s going to cost the state over $600 million in lost federal revenues. Second, and more painfully, working poor Michiganders who make too little to qualify for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to buy insurance on the health care exchanges have to wait until April before they can be covered by Medicaid.

The real life stories of this completely unnecessary harm being done to our state’s poor residents are now starting to come to light. Yesterday, National Public Radio did a segment on the nationally-aired All Things Considered show, highlighting this. They interviewed a 27-year old woman from Flint named Stacy Sherman who is, in her own words, “slipping through the cracks”, cracks intentionally created by ideologically driven, careless, compassionately anti-Obamacare extremist Republicans in our state legislature:

STACY SHERMAN: My name is Stacy Sherman. I am from Grand Point, Michigan, which is a suburb of Flint.

JOHN YDSTIE: Sherman is a 27-year-old graduate student in liberal studies at the University of Michigan Flint. She had a Blue Cross-Blue Shield policy that she liked that cost her just $64 a month. It will be discontinued in another month because it doesn’t meet ACA requirements, including not providing maternity care.

SHERMAN: I have spoken with Blue Cross and, at this point, they don’t know what they’re doing. They said they actually told me not to sign up for anything for a week and wait for them to decide if they were going to offer my old plan.

YDSTIE: Sherman is especially frustrated because she would likely qualify for free health insurance under Medicaid, but Michigan delayed until April its Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. The catch-22 is that she doesn’t make enough money to get subsidies on the ACA exchange because it was premised on the idea that Medicaid would be expanded simultaneously.

SHERMAN: And they say, oh, you don’t make enough money for us to help you. And I’m just confused because I thought it was specifically supposed to help me so I’m slipping through the cracks and there is nothing specifically for me.

Nice work, Republicans. You did it for 94.3% of the rest of the laws you passed but you couldn’t be bothered to help our state’s most needed working residents. It not only would have cost you nothing to pass Medicaid expansion with immediate effect, it would have saved Michigan taxpayers over a half billion dollars and people like Stacy wouldn’t have to suffer through this. And what did you get for your intentionally mean-spirited act? What, a handful of tea party votes you would have gotten anyway?

If there is such as a thing as karma, Michigan Republicans are in for a world of hurt.

Michigan Republican’s ending of tax credits for charitable giving coming home to roost

by Eclectablog on NOVEMBER 21, 2013 in MICHIGAN REPUBLICANS, TAXES

7

Who woulda thunk it?

In 2012, thanks to Republicans ending the tax break Michigan residents can receive for charitable giving, most people predicted that charitable giving would plummet. It wasn’t a risky prediction, of course. It’s common sense. It was a move made by the GOP to pay, in part, for a massive tax break they gave to corporations.

Well, the results are in and, as predicted, the impact is having profound effects on the ability of Michigan’s food pantries to keep up with ever increasing demands on their services. The Detroit Free Press reports in their piece “Families in need find empty shelves at area food pantries”:

[Food pantry] clients…may start noticing something unusual at food pantries: sparse shelves. A flood of funding cuts — including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — more people in need, rises in food prices and other expenses have pantries in Michigan and across the country bracing for tough times. [...]

In Michigan, tax credits for a range of contributions are no longer allowed, including those to food banks, according to the Michigan League for Public Policy — which can mean less monetary donations to food banks.

Detroit-based Gleaners Community Food Bank of Southeastern Michigan estimated $200,000 less in gifts in the last quarter of last year because of the tax credit change, spokeswoman Anne Schenk said.

This is how the Republican’s plan to bolster economic growth in Michigan is impacting those on the bottom part of the economic ladder. While corporations enjoy higher profits thanks to their new tax cuts, middle class Michiganders have seen their taxes go UP and our poorest residents are facing hardship beyond measure. It’s austerity economics played out in its most cruel form. Those who can afford it least are hit hardest while those who have the most now have more thanks to Republican policies.

As out of work residents struggle with the stark choice of buying food and medicine or paying their bills, the Republicans pat themselves on the back for “cutting taxes”.

It’s shameful.

Fox News Chastises People For Giving To The Homeless: ‘You’re An Enabler’

Fox News Chastises People For Giving To The Homeless: ‘You’re An Enabler’
NOVEMBER 21, 2013 AT 2:23 PM

According to Fox News, this woman is likely a scammer, alcoholic, or addict who doesn’t deserve your help.

CREDIT: AP

I don’t throw around the term “hero” lightly, but it takes a special kind of person to look at a homeless man on the street — with no home to stay warm in, little access to a shower or clean clothes, and few possessions — and decide that he’s got it too good. But Fox Business host John Stossel bravely took up that mantle Thursday morning during a guest appearance on Fox & Friends, warning viewers about the perniciousness of giving money to the poor.

Donning a fake beard, Stossel sat on a New York City sidewalk with a cardboard sign asking people for help. “I just begged for an hour but I did well,” he said. “If I did this for an eight-hour day I would’ve made 90 bucks. Twenty-three thou for a year. Tax-free.”

Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who recently purchased a $4 million home in Greenwich, gasped in horror at the prospect of poor people earning $23,000 a year. Some people asking for money “are actually scammers,” Hasselbeck warned, seemingly unaware of the irony that the only panhandling “scammer” Fox News identified was Stossel.

Because he was able to successfully convince good-hearted pedestrians that he was poor, Stossel went on to chastise people who gave the homeless money because, in his view, “most are not…for real.”

He implored viewers to stop giving money to poor people because if you do, “you’re an enabler.”

Watch the segment:

There are a multitude of incorrect claims and assumptions in this short segment:

$23,000 per year: Stossel spent a single hour on the streets and was given approximately $11 by people who wanted to help out someone in need. Therefore, Stossel assumes he would make $23,000 per year. (That figure is actually a steep drop from Stossel’s claims in the past, that he knew of beggars who made $80,000 per year panhandling.) There are a multitude of false assumptions here. First, one of the only scientific surveys of panhandlers found that the vast majority made $25 per day or less, annualized at just over $9,000. Second, $9,000 — or even $23,000 — is difficult to survive on, especially in a city like New York where the median apartment rents for more than $3,000 in Manhattan and more than $2,500 in Brooklyn. Third, spending 8 hours a day asking for money is time that can’t be spent going to classes, gaining skills, picking up diapers for a crying child, or interviewing for a job.

Homeless people “are actually scammers”: Hasselbeck noted that “scammers” were rife among beggars, implying that panhandling is some get-rich-quick scheme engaged in by hucksters. Stossel agreed, saying that most beggars were not “for real.” Their only evidence for this claim? The fact that Stossel spent an hour undercover as a homeless person and was able to fool people into believing he was needy. An actual study of beggars, on the other hand, found that 82 percent were homeless, two in three were disabled, most earned less than $25 per day, and nearly all used the money for food. If Stossel and Hasselbeck truly do believe there is a scourge of well-off people acting as though they’re impoverished so they can successfully panhandle — nobody’s idea of a fun time — what would Stossel have people do? Ask beggars for a tax return before giving them a buck?

Drugs and alcohol: Stossel cautions that well-intentioned people are actually enabling bad behavior because poor people will just use the money for drugs and alcohol. But that’s not what the data shows. While some do use the money for drugs and alcohol, most don’t. What did a survey find 94 percent of panhandlers used the money for? Food.

Chastising beggars is an annual tradition for Stossel: Pretending to be poor and homeless is becoming an annual tradition for Stossel. Here’s his 2011 segment, his 2012 segment, and now his 2013 segment. Some journalists use their perch to give voice to the voiceless. Stossel’s hobby horse, on the other hand, is apparently to convince Fox viewers that poor people are too well off.

Privilege: “I felt foolish and uncomfortable,” Stossel said of the experience, right after imploring viewers not to give poor people the dignity of believing they are actually poor instead of drunks, addicts, or scammers. Watching four wealthy white people sit in a New York television studio and banter about the evils of giving money to homeless people is like waking up the day after your 21st birthday: it’s not surprising, but still painful.

Only Stossel would be capable of benefiting from people’s generosity, and then deciding that they were rubes with too much holiday spirit and we should really all be grinches who are suspicious of one another. War on Christmas, indeed.