"Compassionate Conservative" in Action

I wonder what people like this think will happen to the homelessness when there are no funding?

As near as I can figure, their thinking goes like this:

1.  Funding for social programs cut

2.  Pull own bootstrap

3.  Success!

That kind of wishful thinking isn't good policy.

Phew!

Phew!  So glad Wisconsin went ahead with more rail.  Oh, wait...

If not now, when?

Interesting look at the issue of sex education in the Wisconsin State Journal.  Apparently in 2010, a comprehensive sex education curriculum was passed, and this year's Republicans want to reverse that.  Leaving aside the whole issue of abortion funding which the article also covers, I've never gotten a real answer to my question:  When exactly do Republicans think that today's teens will receive the comprehensive sex education they need?  And from who?  Clearly many parents aren't doing it, which means teens are getting their information from potentially unreliable sources of information.

Today's teens are tomorrow's adults.  If we want to cut down on unplanned pregnancies, on sexually transmitted diseases, etc. then kids need to be educated.  Now, that's good policy.

Cuts For Thee and None for Me

The Republicans are trying to renege on their deal.  There's no other way to look at this; Republicans agreed that if the so-called Super-committee failed to reach a deal, there would be painful cuts to defense.  Now they're trying to renege on that deal.  But they're still perfectly happy to continue with cuts to social programs.

I especially loved this quote:

“If you look at these cuts, it is not just the amount of the dollars that is a concern, but also the arbitrary way the cuts are done,” said Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), whose district includes huge military installations in Hampton Roads. “The worst thing you can do is reach up and pull a figure and say you are going to cut without any strategic review.”

Why not?  They've been pushing cuts for years, if not decades, without thought as to the impact they'd have.

Food Insecurity

As we recuperate from our Thanksgiving meals, it's important to remember that many Americans did not have the same opportunity to, well, gorge as we just did.

Think Progress has a post on food insecurity in America using data from last year. Food insecurity means that a person does not always know where his/her next meal will come from.  Shockingly, over 17 million households faced food insecurity in 2010, or 1 in 7 households.

Most people,such as yourself, upon hearing this, would probably say, "how can we ensure that those households, especially those with children, have access to their daily nutritional needs?"  But you're probably not a Republican in Congress.  And you would definitely not be Representative Paul Ryan, whose budget slashes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by $127 billion (yes, with a "B") over the next decade.  Even with the additional number of families struggling in this economy.

The farm bill is not yet finalized, so the final budget for food assistance programs are not known (at least, by me), but with it under attack by Republicans in Congress and likely pressure on Democrats from agricultural states to protect farm subsidies, outlook is not good.  For some annoying reason, nutritional assistance programs are in the same budget pot as farm subsidies, which means that food assistance tend to suffer first.

Studies have shown the importance of good nutrition for families-from pregnant women to kids in school, so it's simply inexcusable that we are sabotaging our future by not ensuring that our children receive the proper amount of nutrition.

Faux Outrage

The only thing more tiring than the faux outrage of the day is the insistence of the stenographers in reporting it dutifully.  Come on, media-at some point, you gotta say, "here's the latest idiocy that they're pretending to be upset about.

Addition:  Needless to say, we would be better served if the press would focus on substantive follow-up questions such as: Why is it so important that Obama thank God?  Why are some acting so outraged when some in the same party had a similar omission?  Did previous presidents always thank God?  And finally, does anyone actually care?

Regulations

One thing I've commented on-if not here, then elsewhere-is that very often regulations are pushed by businesses and industries rather than the government as a way to lock out the competition.  Matthew Yglesias over at his new home, Slate's Moneybox, has a great illustration of this.

So how do you prevent this?  Mostly by making sure that the need for licensing is justified, and making sure that the foxes are not in charge of the hen house; in this case, the Commission ruling on the justification of the regulation are controlled by those who would benefit from it.

Housing Policies & Advocacy

Affordable housing, in some ways, is very difficult to do advocacy on.  The people most directly impacted by poor housing policies very often are unable-for various reasons-to do any advocacy on the national level, which is where much of funding for affordable housing happens.  People who are searching for housing, people who has to work two jobs to make ends meet, etc. simply do not have the time or background to educate themselves on housing issues, which can be complex.  The idea of calling their Senator and/or Representative can be intimidating, especially when you're not sure of what the difference between Section 811, Section 8, Section 202, Section 42, etc. are, or what SEVRA, SESA, PETRA, etc. are.

Service providers, the organizational staff that very often work with segments of the low-income population, such as those who work with people with disabilities, people who are elderly, struggling families, etc. are often overwhelmed.  Many non-profit organizations are also often confused at where the line between advocacy and lobbying is, so they err on the side of caution.

So often it falls to people whose job is to learn about housing issues-the finances, the budgeting, the regulations, etc. to do the advocacy on behalf of the low-income population.  Of course, there are people who represent tax-credit developers, public housing authorities, etc. but they have a different perspective than the people who would actually occupy the units. 

Representing the low-income population are a number of national organizations-the one I'm most familiar with is the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC).  And then there are other organizations who focus on community/neighborhood development such as the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC).  Some work on homelessness issues such as the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness. 

Those and other organizations (feel free to suggest additional ones in comments) do policy analysis and distribute that information to legislators and other policy makers.  They also often freely share their results with the public.  Many, if not all, have newsletters and/or advocacy alerts for people.  In other words, it can be easy to just sign up for some alerts, and then start advocating almost immediately even if you don't know much about the issues-those alerts often explain what's at stake.

So what I'm saying is, get off your duff, go sign up for the newsletters, and start advocating for better housing policies on the national level.  And while you're at it, help out those under appreciated organizations by becoming a member-I'm a member of NLIHC-to help support them financially so they can continue their fine work.

(Yes, I know, unfortunately, much of this information sharing is almost entirely Internet-based, so it can be difficult for people without reliable access to the Internet to participate. )

Update:  How could I forget the Technical Assistance Collaborative? 

Serious Question

Let's look at two groups.  The Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street.

Both groups protest what they see as injustices.

• The Tea Party protest taxes-even though taxes are at a historic low.
• Occupy Wall Street protest the disparity between the financial elite and the rest of us, which is statistically demonstrated in a number of ways.

Both groups received media coverage.

• The Tea Party received extensive corporate media coverage-very often disproportionate at some events to the actual numbers of Tea Party members present.  Much of coverage-in particular from one network-has been very positive.
• Occupy Wall Street initially received very little coverage, and much of the coverage from the "mainstream" media has been negative.

Both groups received police attention.

• The Tea Party members had polite police attention-even when Tea Party members were openly carrying weapons.
• Occupy Wall Street protesters were attacked by the police-very often when protesting peacefully.  In some instances, they were sprayed with pepper spray while sitting on the ground. 

Both groups receive financial support.

• The Tea Party received extensive financial support from right-wing billionaires and other moneyed people.
• Occupy Wall Street relies heavily on individual and online donations.

So we have one group that is protesting tax rates that are already low, and receiving favorable attention and support from the media-to the extent that one network (FOX) even quite literally promoted an event.  And are funded by moneyed people. The other group, despite facts on their side, have been attacked both by the corporate media and the police (who take commands from the Mayor).  The second group relies on individual support.

So the question is-which group do you think will actually create societal change?  And which one is merely a cat's paw for the moneyed elite?

Update:  Just saw this, which indicates that Wall Street fears the Occupy Wall Street to the extent they're willing to spend money to smear the movement.