Interesting Experiment in Sweden

According to this, many drivers will like mass transit more than they think.  I, of course, fully support getting more drivers off the roads into the buses and the trains.  Less traffic for me.

Vouchers in Wisconsin

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, always an indispensable source of information on federal issues, has released some new information.

First up is a state-by-state summary of federal rental assistance.  The Wisconsin fact sheet points out that only a small number of Wisconsin's renters are assisted by federal assistance, and with that comes additional risk:

When housing costs consume more than half of household income, low-income families are at greater risk of becoming homeless. Point-in-time surveys suggest that at least 6,525 people are homeless in Wisconsin.

The housing voucher data for Wisconsin shows that 91% of vouchers were used in Wisconsin, in line with the national average.  But that missing 9% means that 1,824 less families received assistance.  This page shows data over the past few years for each public housing authority.

The top public housing authorities in terms of voucher usage for 2010:

• Chippewa County at 100% (382 Vouchers)
• Eau Claire at 100% (405 Vouchers)
• Fond Du Lac County at 100% (430 Vouchers)
• Eau Claire County at 99% (219 of 221 Vouchers)
• Dodge County at 99% (151 of 152 Vouchers)
• Beloit Community Development at 97% (577 of 598 Vouchers)
• WHEDA at 97% (1,326 of 1,366 Vouchers)
• Winnebago County at 97% (401 of 413 Vouchers)
• Portage County at 97% (242 of 250 Vouchers)

And the public housing authorities that are not doing so well at voucher utilization:

• Platteville at 79% (101 of 128)
• Oconto County at 78% (57 of 73 Vouchers)
• Marshfield Community Deveopment at 76% (72 of 95 Vouchers)
• Sauk County at 74% (220 of 298 Vouchers)
• Burnett County at 73% (24 of 33 Vouchers)
• Taylor County at 70% (21 of 30 Vouchers)
• Dodgeville at 70% (56 of 80 Vouchers
• Wausau at 61% (265 of 435 Vouchers)

While I'd like to offer my kudos to the housing authorities that are doing a good job of utilizing their vouchers, especially year after year, the housing authorities that are not fully utilizing their vouchers simply has to do a better job.  That's something the local advocates need to take a part in. 

Wausau's 61% is simply horrenous when there is so much demand for vouchers, and all the more puzzling since they were at 98% in 2004 and kept utilizing less and less each year.  Same with Sauk County, going from 100% in 2004 to 74% in 2010. Taylor from 97% to 70%.  What's going on with those and other housing authorities? 

Update:  I'm getting some pushback on this, pointing out that the budget authority for the vouchers can be very different than the number "allocated".  A few years ago, HUD changed to a different system in which PHAs are given a specific budget number rather than a commitment to fund the assigned number of vouchers.  I'm trying to follow up with CBPP on this, and I should have a fuller explanation on this in the near future.

Update 2:  New blog post on this.

Freeloaders & Mooches

In the comment sections in newspaper websites, which are ruled by cruel people, I constantly see people complaining about freeloaders and moochers.

I doubt this is what they had in mind, but I also doubt they'll be nearly as outraged.

Family Self Sufficiency Award announced

On Thursday (Sept 22), the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced awards for the Housing Choice Voucher Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program.  FSS programs are designed to assist people receiving Housing Choice Vouchers ("Section 8 Vouchers") obtain employment that would eventually lead them to be more economically independent.  There is a similar FSS program for public housing residents.

FSS program services may include, but are not limited to:

• child care
• transportation
• education
• job training and employment counseling
• substance/alcohol abuse treatment or counseling
• household skill training
• homeownership counseling

HUD awarded $60 million across the nation, including $566,120 in Wisconsin.

Appleton Housing Authority $49,600

Brown County Housing Authority $135,462

City of Kenosha Housing Authority $67,266

Dane County Housing Authority $38,572

Dunn County Housing Authority $18,698

Housing Authority of Racine County $66,190

Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee $69,000

Sauk County Housing Authority $52,332

Winnebago County Housing Authority $69,000

HUD believes that the program works, and issued a new report evaluating the program.

After 4 years in the FSS program, 24 percent of the study participants completed program requirements and graduated from FSS. When the study ended, 37 percent had left the program without graduating and 39 percent were still enrolled in FSS. Program graduates were more likely to be employed than other exiters or the still-enrolled participants. Program graduates also had higher incomes, both when they enrolled in FSS and when they completed the program, than participants with other outcomes.

At first take, having more drop-outs than graduates isn't exactly a picture of a rousing success.  The report states that 31 of 63 who left the program did so involuntarily; they were removed due to violations of either FSS agreement (such as showing up for review meetings) or due to voucher program violations.  Others left the program for various reasons, usually due to family & work obligations making it difficult to keep in contact with the FSS staff person.  The fact that keeping in contact seems to be a big factor for those who leave the program involuntarily and for those who leave voluntarily makes me wonder if the FSS program couldn't have better outcomes if the FSS staff showed more flexibility.  My limited experience with the rental assistance program is that they tend to tell people, "show up at this date & time, or else."

Outcomes were generally positive for those who graduated from the program, with some clues for improved program efficiency.

This study finds that the financial benefits are substantial for participants who remain in and graduate from the FSS program. The study also highlights certain personal and program characteristics that tend to make families more successful in FSS. (For example, those with higher levels of education at enrollment did better.) These findings suggest approaches that program administrators can take to target FSS services more effectively.

Policies & Babies

Reading this Journal-Sentinel article about premature babies, I was struck by how expensive they are.

In Wisconsin, prematurity cost BadgerCare Plus, the state health plan for families and pregnant women with limited incomes, $81 million in the 2010 fiscal year and more than $300 million over the past four years

.
When one realizes that caring for an infant born at 24 weeks can exceed $630,000, and that in totality, including special education, lost productivity, etc., premature babies cost at least $26.2 billion (as of 2006) nationally, one has to think that there has to be a way to reduce all this cost.

While medicine has not arrived at a single prescription to prevent prematurity, experts say there are measures that have been shown to reduce rates and save money.

Programs that help women stop smoking, stay off drugs, maintain a healthy weight and reduce rates of chronic illness ultimately translate into fewer preterm deliveries. Medications, such as progesterone gel for women with a short cervix, have also shown great promise in reducing prematurity.

This is the sort of thing that a program I pointed to yesterday can help with.  Efforts to help guide people through the confusing health care system, to ensure they receive preventive care and are educated, can save us money down the road.

But in the eyes of some, that'd be big government and socialism.

Better Policies Lead to Better Results

One of the things I hope to stress in this blog is that policies have an impact, even if one does not always realize it.  In the past, I've pointed to bad policies, usually in housing.  But this time, I'd like to point to a policy in San Francisco that has led to improved results and lower costs.

Via Ezra Klein, I read about a program designed to ensure that people with low income have access to health care, and to nip problems in the bud before they become larger (& more expensive) problems. The website for Healthy San Francisco describes the program as:

Healthy San Francisco is not insurance, but a reinvention of the San Francisco health care safety net, that will enable and encourage residents to access primary and preventive care. It provides a Medical Home and primary physician to each program participant, allowing a greater focus on preventive care, as well as specialty care, urgent and emergency care, laboratory, inpatient hospitalization, radiology, and pharmaceuticals.

Better access to preventive health care leads to fewer emergency room visits, which are much more costly to the community.

A Humble Suggestion

With this Tom Daykin article describing Harley's decision to back out of developing offices on 6th & Canal, I have a humble suggestion to make.

Tom writes:

If approved Sept. 20 by the Common Council, Harley would not be obligated to develop the buildings, totaling 100,000 square feet, on the parking lots it owns west of S. 6th St., across from the museum.In return, Harley would pay the city $700,000.

Also, if Harley gets an offer to sell the parking lots over the next five years, it must first give the city an opportunity to buy the 3.5-acre parcel for $535,000. The city could then sell the land to a developer, or hold it for future development prospects.

 If you look at the location:




View Larger Map


You can see it offers immediate bicycle & pedestrian access to the Hank Aaron Trail as well as downtown area and the lakefront. 

I suggest that instead of simply accepting $700,000 from Harley, the City negotiate with Harley to turn over those two parking lots, and then the City use those lots for visitors wishing safe access to the trail.  One of my pet peeves in the past has been than it can be difficult to access bike paths and trails in other communities. The City could even figure out if it'd be worthwhile to install meters (in affordable hourly increments).

This Book Looks Interesting

I think The Gated City will be next on my reading list, as well as Matthew Yglesias' forthcoming The Rent Is Too Damn High.  Those two e-books will cover, indirectly and directly, issues affecting housing in America.

Well Deserved Award

Congratulations to Housing Authority of City of Milwaukee Director Tony Perez on his well-deserved honor of being the 2011 receipent of the Frank Ziedler Public Service Award.

Update on Odious Wall Street Article

A while ago, someone with an agenda wrote a very slanted article for the very conservative Wall Street Journal op-ed pages.  This article, Raising Hell in Subsidized Housing, showed that the author, James Bovard, was confused about the difference between project-based housing and tenant-based vouchers.  Very often he cited studies that included project-based housing units to argue against tenant-based vouchers, even though the studies he refers to argues in favor of tenant-based vocuhers.  I do a take-down here.

The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) wrote a response to the article, and I'm finaly getting around to linking to it.    NAHRO points out (as I did) that Mr. Bovard cherry-picked the facts that he thought would support his point, ignoring contradictory evidence.  NAHRO points out that there are studies and evidence in support of positive outcomes of the housing assistance programs:

In an attempt to characterize Section 8 voucher-assisted households as engaging in a greater percent of criminal acts than the general populace, he also cited an article by Hanna Rosin ("American Murder Mystery," from the Sept. 2008 issue of The Atlantic). However, this article was rebutted by Susan Popkin, who notes that "Rosin’s summary understates [the] positive results [of the research] and distorts the facts" and that she also disregards Stefanie DeLuca and colleagues’ recent findings that 15 to 20 years later, more than two-thirds of the families are still in better neighborhoods, and many mothers continue to enjoy employment gains and fewer require welfare." Claims from the Rosin article were also debunked by Xavier de Souza Briggs and NHI board member Peter Dreier.

Smaller Homes & Zoning Issues

A Journal Sentinel article by Paul Gores covers a builder, Miracle Homes, that is building a smaller home, "Mi-Pad" (I think that's Apple's lawyers on the other line), with a 3 bedroom and 2.5 bathrooms that supposedly sells for as low as $89,000.  Here's a hint-you don't need 2.5 bathrooms for a 3 bedroom home!

I don't see this on Miracle's website, but the article says they'll have two Mi-Pads for this year's Miracle Tour of Homes (apparently not to be confused with the Parade of Homes).

Here's what jumped out at me.

Not every community welcomes small homes, but Hignite said he's found that Mount Pleasant, Belgium and West Bend are among those that do.

My question is-why doesn't other communities welcome smaller homes (on, presumably, smaller lots)?  Smaller homes offer more affordable options for people, as well as options for lifestyle preferences.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission offers a list of communities and their zoning policies.  As you can see, there are quite a range in the minimum sizes of single-family homes and minimum lot sizes.

I've heard jokes that very often many older dense areas would be illegal under modern zoning policies, and that's true to a large degree.  Zoning for new developments very often have larger requirements than older parts of the community.  To some extent, this is intended to bring in more upscale housing for more property tax revenue, but I suspect this will come back to bite many communities in the backside years later when those homes are no longer upscale, yet the community has to spend money to maintain the infrastructure and services for those homes.

Super-Pinocchio alert!

What is this?  Why, it's our old friend, the inspiration for the Pinocchio series of posts, Senator Ron Johnson!  I'm going to have so much fun with his most recent newsletter! Blogger really sucks at copying/pasting, so I'm going to have to fix the formatting.  Do you suppose if I send him a note asking him nicely to put his newsletters online so it's easier for me to mock him, he'll do it?  I don't suppose so.

Senator Johnson Outlines Plan for Economic Recovery

In the Washington Times this week, I outlined my plan for economic recovery. Since taking office in admittedly tough economic conditions, the president has taken America 180 degrees in the wrong direction. His failed $825-billion stimulus, Obamacare,  Dodd-Frank and the explosion of his administration’s other  job-killing regulations have combined to put a stranglehold on our economy. Until these policies are reversed, the lack of confidence that dampens consumption, business investment and job creation will be the order of the day. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is blinded by ideology and refuses to acknowledge the harm his agenda has wreaked on America and our economic future. Fortunately, some in Congress understand the harm his agenda is causing and are working hard to reverse course.

As the former chief executive officer of a midsized manufacturing business, I do understand the value of the real job producers in America.   I also understand how Mr. Obama’s policies affect their ability to expand their businesses and create new jobs. What we need to do to get our economy moving again is pretty obvious. Here’s a short outline of the necessary components of a solution:

• Repeal Obamacare and Dodd-Frank: Neither of these laws fixed the problems they were designed to solve, and instead, they do far more harm than good.
• Regulation moratorium: The $1.75-trillion-per-year regulatory burden is making the United States a very unattractive place for  global business investment. Imposing a moratorium on new regulations is a necessary first step in reversing the damage. A bill I introduced last month would do just that.
• Credible plan to control spending: The elements of the “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan had the support of 66 percent to 74 percent of the American people. Once consumers and investors are  convinced we have spending under control, confidence will return  to our economy.
• Tax reform: Our 70,000-page tax code costs taxpayers more than $300 billion in annual compliance costs to raise $2.2 trillion in revenue. It is riddled with special treatments that result in less efficient economic behavior. Reforms should make the system  more streamlined in a way that promotes rather than harms economic growth.
• Budget reform: I will work with House members to pass legislation that will:

              1. Replace “base-line” budgeting with “zero-based” budgeting.

              2. Require Congress and the administration to make all  entitlements structurally solvent for 75 years by fiscal 2014.

              3. Require all spending to be authorized regularly by Congress.  (Currently, 70 percent of the budget is on automatic pilot.)

              4. Replace the annual budget process with a biennial budget process that authorizes spending in Year 1 and conducts spending oversight in Year 2.

• Civil service hiring freeze: Controlling the size of the federal work force would be a powerful tool in limiting the size, scope and cost of government.
• Energy security: The United States should protect our national security and help ensure price competition by fully utilizing our own natural energy resources.
• Congressional “sunset” committees: Both the House and Senate should have permanent committees whose only focus would be on the elimination of unneeded laws and regulations. More often than  not, government has become part of the problem instead of the solution.

I am willing and eager to work with anyone who is serious about addressing the long-term fiscal crisis facing our nation. Hopefully, Mr. Obama will begin to realize the harm his agenda has caused and work with Congress to reverse course quickly.

Let's go through this step by step.

• Since taking office in admittedly tough economic conditions, the president has taken America 180 degrees in the wrong direction.  Below, courtesy of Steve Benen at Washington Monthly, a graph of monthly job gains/losses:

 

 Red is toward the end of the Bush presidency, when the economy crashed.  Blue is the Obama presidency.  Is the good Senator saying he wants a return to the direction of the economy under Bush?

• His failed $825-billion stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and the explosion of his administration’s other job-killing regulations have combined to put a stranglehold on our economy. Whoa, that's quite a mouthful.  Let's unpack that a bit.
• Stimulus:  I don't know, this looks like the stimulus saved our butts.  Too bad we don't have another one for another jump-start.

• Obamacare: Does Senator Johnson understand that one cannot do a reform overnight?  That any reform takes time?  That it won't be fully implemented until 2020, with many of the major reforms occurring in 2013?  He brags about running a company, so even he should understand it takes time to line up all the elements.  He can't just go out on the floor and say, "You know what, toss those into the trash, we're going to do it this way instead."  No, he has to design products, line up new suppliers, figure a thousand details before the first new product rolls off the assembly line.
• Dodd-Frank: I'm frankly mystified by his, and other Republicans', position on financial reform.  Wall Street nearly trashed our country, and we spent massive amounts on bailouts.  Why wouldn't we, as taxpayers, want some kind of protection?  Just like health reform, it takes time to implement the financial reform.
• Explosion of his administration’s other job-killing regulations:  Republicans really love that turn of phrase, don't they?  "Job-killing regulations!"  They do toss it around at every chance they get.  Unfortunately for them, the truth is something else.  A survey of small businesses found that they weren't worried about regulations.  Indeed, some even welcomed them, and expressed a willingness to close some tax loopholes.  Guess who hates regulations?  Big corporations.
•  The elements of the “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan had the support of 66 percent to 74 percent of the American people.  Does Senator Johnson mean this CNN poll that, if you go into the gritty details, showed that 64% of respondents supported both spending cuts and tax increases?  The one that says 63% of Republicans have not acted responsibly in the debt ceiling debate?  The one where responses to Question #24 on potential cuts are virtually the opposite of Senator Johnson's positions?  Oh, that poll.
• Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is blinded by ideology and refuses to acknowledge the harm his agenda has wreaked on America and our economic future. Projection, baby, projection.
• Tax reform: Our 70,000-page tax code costs taxpayers more than $300 billion in annual compliance costs to raise $2.2 trillion in revenue. It is riddled with special treatments that result in less efficient economic behavior. We actually agree on the special treatments thing, although I imagine our definition is different.  After all, it was Senator Johnson's party that vigorously defended the tax loophole for corporate jets.  You know, the same corporate jets that corporate executives seem to be using as a personal perk for vacations rather than solely for business.
• Civil service hiring freeze: Controlling the size of the federal work force would be a powerful tool in limiting the size, scope and cost of government. The same federal workforce that's already at a relatively low level even though our population has grown?
• Energy security: The United States should protect our national security and help ensure price competition by fully utilizing our own natural energy resources. Well, perhaps companies should start fully utilizing the drilling permits they do have, rather than leaving 2/3 idle in 2010?
• Congressional “sunset” committees: Both the House and Senate should have permanent committees whose only focus would be on the elimination of unneeded laws and regulations. More often than not, government has become part of the problem instead of the solution.  Isn't plagiarizing unethical?
• I am willing and eager to work with anyone who is serious about addressing the long-term fiscal crisis facing our nation. I think the past few months have shown that Senator Johnson isn't. 

Phew! 

Thoughts on Fear, Inc.

Somebody decided to trace the money behind the rising anti-Islam activities, and came up with a network of moneyed folks who seem to like funding people who specialize in trying to scare people.  The result is Fear, Inc.