Matt Walsh, political commentator and host of The Matt Walsh Show on The Daily Wire, recently offered a theory on how to address homelessness.

In a recent tweet, Walsh declared that the homeless should be placed in prisons, asylums, or, if they can get back on track, rehab centers. While the Left came after him with torches and pitchforks, many Americans quietly nodded in agreement.

The tweet came shortly after President Donald Trump’s most recent executive order: the creation of the National Center for Warrior Independence, which aims to help homeless veterans (instead of funding housing for illegal immigrants, which was Biden’s original plan for that taxpayer money).

Trump’s plan has also reignited broader discussions about homelessness in the United States—and Walsh’s statement certainly struck a nerve. Many criticized it as cruel, while others praised him for saying what most are afraid to say.

Some are barking up the wrong tree, debating whether the term should be “homeless” or “unhoused.” As usual, when it comes to real problems, leftists focus on something else entirely instead of getting to the heart of the matter. They zero in on language like Walsh's, and offer little regarding decisive ideas like these. They squawked at him for calling people “homeless” instead of “unhoused,” a term woke activists now prefer. 

This nervous obsession with politically correct vocabulary is the Left’s trademark move. Like a dog barking up the wrong tree, they’ve cycled through so many terms over the years: from “bums” to “tramps” to “homeless,” and now to “unhoused”—while doing little to solve the fundamental crisis. Are Democrats more interested in winning a terminology feud than helping people off the streets?

Beyond the word games, there’s a serious question: Should taxpayer money be used to fund homelessness programs?

As of 2024, America has around 771,400 homeless individuals. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), around 30% of them are dependent on drugs. Meaning a large share of publicly funded homelessness programs could go to people unlikely to recover, driving up the cost. Is that really where our tax dollars should go?

It remains unclear whether pouring billions into a homelessness crisis—largely fueled by addiction, mental illness, and poor choices, particularly in liberal cities—is sustainable.

At the end of the day, the question remains: What should the government do with our money? With Trump, there’s forward movement. With liberals, it’s endless arguments over terminology.

Is funding these programs the answer, or is it time to think about longer-term solutions like the one suggested by Matt Walsh?