Sunday, July 31, 2011
Interesting post
So, umm...somebody...wrote a post over at the National Low Income Housing Coalition's blog, On the Home Front.
New Feature
I've been mulling over starting a new feature on this blog. Since this was inspired by Senator Johnson, I thought of calling it The Johnson Watch, but as I'm sure I'll want to include other legislators in the joy, I'll have to find a different name. Suggestions, please.
Monday, July 25, 2011
The more I read of the tragic case of Raquel Nelson, the more outraged I am at the prosecutor who apparently filed charges only when a story on jaywalking mentioned her, the jury that convicted her, the unsympathetic public in Atlanta, and the city planners who did such a poor job of placing the bus stop.
The jury that convicted her was a jury of white people who all had replied that they never took public transportation. (Incidentally, this makes me question the defense attorney's expertise.) The jury was unsympathetic to the fact that the bus stop was right across from her home, with the nearest cross-walk 3/10 of a mile away (keep in mind that's a walk both ways, so 6/10 of a mile lugging bags and young children).
Let me tell you right now; if you're going to tell me you've never jaywalked once in your life, I'm going to flat-out call you a liar. But somehow, this woman ended up charged with-let's see, what was it? "Reckless conduct, improperly crossing a roadway and second-degree homicide by vehicle." Each is punishable by up to 12 months in prison. In the meantime, the person who killed her son, who previously was convicted of two hit & runs, is already out of prison after serving six months of a five-year sentence. As Radley Balko noted, she could serve three times more time in prison than her son's killer.
So we have an over-zealous prosecutor (I'm lookin' at ya, Barry Morgan, although Barry Moron would be more fitting), an unsympathetic jury who has never taken public transportation and does not understand the frustration of poorly placed bus stops, an indifferent public in Atlanta region, many that blamed her, and the planners who thought it'd be a good idea to place the bus stop in the middle of a block rather than at the intersection.
What's interesting to me, though, is this sentence, emphasis mine: "She and the children crossed two lanes and waited with other passengers on the raised median for a break in traffic." Were those other passengers charged with two of the three charges that Ms. Nelson was? Surely they were listed as witnesses to the hit & run? No? Then that's a good indication of a grandstanding prosecutor.
There are many levels of good policies needed for a good community; we need good design (better bus stop placement), a justice system that is not abused by grandstanding prosecutors, and a public that actually cares. For Rachel Nelson, society has failed her on so many levels.
The jury that convicted her was a jury of white people who all had replied that they never took public transportation. (Incidentally, this makes me question the defense attorney's expertise.) The jury was unsympathetic to the fact that the bus stop was right across from her home, with the nearest cross-walk 3/10 of a mile away (keep in mind that's a walk both ways, so 6/10 of a mile lugging bags and young children).
Let me tell you right now; if you're going to tell me you've never jaywalked once in your life, I'm going to flat-out call you a liar. But somehow, this woman ended up charged with-let's see, what was it? "Reckless conduct, improperly crossing a roadway and second-degree homicide by vehicle." Each is punishable by up to 12 months in prison. In the meantime, the person who killed her son, who previously was convicted of two hit & runs, is already out of prison after serving six months of a five-year sentence. As Radley Balko noted, she could serve three times more time in prison than her son's killer.
So we have an over-zealous prosecutor (I'm lookin' at ya, Barry Morgan, although Barry Moron would be more fitting), an unsympathetic jury who has never taken public transportation and does not understand the frustration of poorly placed bus stops, an indifferent public in Atlanta region, many that blamed her, and the planners who thought it'd be a good idea to place the bus stop in the middle of a block rather than at the intersection.
What's interesting to me, though, is this sentence, emphasis mine: "She and the children crossed two lanes and waited with other passengers on the raised median for a break in traffic." Were those other passengers charged with two of the three charges that Ms. Nelson was? Surely they were listed as witnesses to the hit & run? No? Then that's a good indication of a grandstanding prosecutor.
There are many levels of good policies needed for a good community; we need good design (better bus stop placement), a justice system that is not abused by grandstanding prosecutors, and a public that actually cares. For Rachel Nelson, society has failed her on so many levels.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Debt Ceiling Thoughts
After reading this, I'm wondering about something. Historically, Congress has passed debt ceiling increases with little fanfare. To be sure, the minority party usually votes symbolically against the debt ceiling, just as they vote for it when in power. Even though the Congress is divided between the Republicans in House and the Democrats in the Senate, it shouldn't have mattered.
And yet, this year for the first time, the Republicans have decided to hold the debt ceiling hostage to policies they want to see passed. Hostage may seem like a strong word, but how else do you describe it? All of sudden, after numerous negotiation attempts have broken down because the Republcians have flat-out refused to increase revenue (even by changing the deprication chart for private jets to be in line with commercial jets), the ability of United States to pay its bills is suddenly in doubt.
Standard & Poor has now said that it's not good enough that the United States pass a debt ceiling vote-Congress has to show that it can work together in the future. The impact of a possible downgrade in America's rating is that it will be more costly to borrow money in the future, not just for the United States, but also for many states, and perhaps even municipalities. As Ezra Klein notes, "So S&P is literally saying that America is not acting like a country that deserves a AAA-credit rating. Nice job, Congress."
Except, of course, it's not the "Congress" but the Republicans that are causing this.
Let's see; something that unncessarily costs the United States a tremendous amount of money, out of political spite.
How do you not use the word treason? A strong word that Democrats, to their credit, have not used, but consider how often the Republicans tossed it around after 9/11 against any doubters. If they can toss it around so blithely against people who simply disagreed with their policies, can we not use the word when there is actual harm to the United States?
And yet, this year for the first time, the Republicans have decided to hold the debt ceiling hostage to policies they want to see passed. Hostage may seem like a strong word, but how else do you describe it? All of sudden, after numerous negotiation attempts have broken down because the Republcians have flat-out refused to increase revenue (even by changing the deprication chart for private jets to be in line with commercial jets), the ability of United States to pay its bills is suddenly in doubt.
Standard & Poor has now said that it's not good enough that the United States pass a debt ceiling vote-Congress has to show that it can work together in the future. The impact of a possible downgrade in America's rating is that it will be more costly to borrow money in the future, not just for the United States, but also for many states, and perhaps even municipalities. As Ezra Klein notes, "So S&P is literally saying that America is not acting like a country that deserves a AAA-credit rating. Nice job, Congress."
Except, of course, it's not the "Congress" but the Republicans that are causing this.
Let's see; something that unncessarily costs the United States a tremendous amount of money, out of political spite.
How do you not use the word treason? A strong word that Democrats, to their credit, have not used, but consider how often the Republicans tossed it around after 9/11 against any doubters. If they can toss it around so blithely against people who simply disagreed with their policies, can we not use the word when there is actual harm to the United States?
Friday, July 22, 2011
Ezra Klein Nails It
Exactly what I've tried to tell people.
It's about what you prioritize. Labels doesn't matter when it's money going toward something rather than a different policy option. But because it happens to be labeled one way, it's somehow treated differently.
It's about what you prioritize. Labels doesn't matter when it's money going toward something rather than a different policy option. But because it happens to be labeled one way, it's somehow treated differently.
New Berlin Irony
By now, I am sure most of you have heard about the New Berlin settlement with MSP Real Estate to allow construction of 102 tax-credit units in a condo format. Key point of irony:
It was never the senior apartments that the people objected to, even though parking issues was used as one of the rationales for the rejection. So all that the protesting and moaning accomplished was a net increase in 22 "workforce housing" units. Precisely the kind of units they found so objectionable.
What was it that David Letterman used to say? Ah, yes. How do you like them apples?
The development is smaller in scope than the 80 affordable residences, termed workforce apartments, and 100 senior apartments that the City's Plan Commission approved in May 2010 and then rescinded two months later after public opposition erupted over MSP's plans.
It was never the senior apartments that the people objected to, even though parking issues was used as one of the rationales for the rejection. So all that the protesting and moaning accomplished was a net increase in 22 "workforce housing" units. Precisely the kind of units they found so objectionable.
What was it that David Letterman used to say? Ah, yes. How do you like them apples?
Produce & Health
Matthew Yglesias' intern points to an initiative by First Lady Michelle Obama who is working with a number of supermarket chains to bring fresh food options to what are called "food deserts." Food Deserts are places-typically inner-city-that has no easy access to grocery stores, and thus, no healthy options such as fruits & vegetables. Often the only access is either a long trip or the local gas station or corner store.
He wonders if simply bringing those options to areas will result in actual improvements in the number of produce consumed. I had similiar thoughts; after all, studies (that I'm not going to bother trying to find and link to) have shown that as matter of economics, especially for low-income people with a limited budget, food typicaly found in the middle aisles of a grocery store make more sense financially than fresh produce. Not only is a Mac & Cheese cheaper, it's more filling compared to a similar cost in produce. And it's nowhere as perishable.
Fortunately, he was able to find a study that indicates that, yes, having easy access to grocery stores does result in better food outcomes.
He wonders if simply bringing those options to areas will result in actual improvements in the number of produce consumed. I had similiar thoughts; after all, studies (that I'm not going to bother trying to find and link to) have shown that as matter of economics, especially for low-income people with a limited budget, food typicaly found in the middle aisles of a grocery store make more sense financially than fresh produce. Not only is a Mac & Cheese cheaper, it's more filling compared to a similar cost in produce. And it's nowhere as perishable.
Fortunately, he was able to find a study that indicates that, yes, having easy access to grocery stores does result in better food outcomes.
After controlling for confounding variables, easy access to supermarket shopping was associated with increased household use of fruits (84 grams per adult equivalent per day; 95% confidence interval). Distance from home to food store was inversely associated with fruit use by households. Similar patterns were seen with vegetable use, though associations were not significant.
Oconomowoc Urgent Needs Fund
Nice article by Donna Frake about a new fund put together by concerned people in Oconomowoc area to help those who are experiencing housing problems. It's nice seeing a community recognizing a problem and working toward a solution.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
More on Mortgage Interest Deductions
A favorite blog post of mine is one I wrote in response to the New Berlin & MSP fracas in which many people were moaning about how horrible subsidized housing is. I pointed out that the biggest housing subsidy is the mortgage interest deduction.
I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page here. Homeowners receive a total subsidy nearly three times larger than renters does, just from the mortgage interest deduction. Throw in the other tax preferences & we're talking' real money.
Later I pointed to a Kevin Drum blog on who benefits from this mortgage interest deduction. the answer seemed to be higher-income groups who probably don't need it, rather than low-income homebuyers who presumably would need that incentive.
Via Kevin Drum, we have an answer to this question as he calculates that the benefit comes to about 2% of the income, no matter what the income level.
So why is the mortgage interest deduction so popular? Because homeownership is pretty widespread even at low incomes and the amount of the deduction is about the same for everyone as a percentage of income. $283 may not seem like much, but to someone with an income of $10-20,000, it's as valuable as $2,856 is to someone with an income of $100-200,000. Result: everyone loves the mortgage interest deduction.
The actual dollar disparity remains as the upper-income groups benefit disproportionately, but as a percentage, everyone's pretty much pleased. Except for the renters, of course, who don't benefit. This makes reform tricky as many people will have a financial stake in it, even the lower-income groups who might benefit more from the reform. People often prefer to stick with a proven benefit rather than an unproven idea.
Crime in the...Suburbs?
Study by Brookings showing overall trends of crime in metro areas, showing that crime rates are falling in core cities and inner-ring suburbs while increasing in the outer suburbs. Although the city crime rates are still higher, the gap between the suburban and city crime rates have narrowed.
I'm sure that's reflected in reporting by the media, right?
In general, the nation’s largest metropolitan areas are much safer today than they were in years past. Within metropolitan areas, older, more urbanized, poorer, and more minority communities have benefited the most from these trends, narrowing the disparities between cities and suburbs and underscoring that crime is not a uniquely urban issue, but a metropolitan one.
I'm sure that's reflected in reporting by the media, right?
Victory of Computers is Inevitable
If there was one thing that I counted on in all possible Terminator-style scenarios, it was that computers couldn't possibly read anything not specifically written in computer language (yeah, I'm ignoring the fact that in the original, the Terminator read a phone book). Furtively passed paper notes and sprayed graffiti were how we were going to beat them.
But even that small comfort is gone.
But even that small comfort is gone.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Man Plans, Gods laugh, Housing-Style
I remember a saying, "Men make plans and the gods laugh." In 2008, after years of hard work and endless advocacy, the National Housing Trust Fund passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and signed by President Bush. By law, it would serve the lowest income category-75% of the funding going to units for those under 30% of Area Median Income. It initially was meant to be funded through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Apparently this is when the laughing began.
Shortly after the Trust Fund was signed into law, the housing market collapsed, putting an end to any thoughts of a portion of the profit from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going into the Trust Fund. Hilarious.
So a new search began for a new funding source. That was the topic of a webinar hosted by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). President Obama's 2012 budget request includes $1 billion in the HUD budget to capitalize the Trust Fund. Bills HR 1477 and S489, both primarily bills aimed at the foreclosure crisis, also includes $1 billion for the Trust Fund. Those are one-time requests, with the funding in the Congressional bills coming from the sale of TARP warrants (I look at it as the sale of stocks in banks & companies that were given to the government in exchange for stimulus money. Or, rather, sale of the right to buy those stocks at a specific price.).
But again, that'd be just one-time funding, which means a permanent ongoing source of revenue is needed. A possibility is a change to the home mortgage interest deduction subsidy that given mostly to the well-off; Only 25% of taxpayers benefit from it, and the top 32% of those taxpayers receive 72% of the benefits. As a housing subsidy, it's remarkably ill-designed, in 2009 costing over $80 billion, or 2% of federal spending, according to this article.
There are already proposals to modify or remove the deduction, and NLIHC is saying that a slice of this should go to the Trust Fund-particularly since the Trust Fund, when originally proposed, included this funding source.
NLIHC supports a proposal that includes the following:
Of course, there's always someone who has to play the spoilsport. Rep. Royce (R-CA) is proposing to eliminate the Trust Fund. He believes it'll be a "slush fund" for special interest groups.
As NLIHC notes from a recent hearing on the issue:
Don't let facts confuse ya, Royce!
Shortly after the Trust Fund was signed into law, the housing market collapsed, putting an end to any thoughts of a portion of the profit from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going into the Trust Fund. Hilarious.
So a new search began for a new funding source. That was the topic of a webinar hosted by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). President Obama's 2012 budget request includes $1 billion in the HUD budget to capitalize the Trust Fund. Bills HR 1477 and S489, both primarily bills aimed at the foreclosure crisis, also includes $1 billion for the Trust Fund. Those are one-time requests, with the funding in the Congressional bills coming from the sale of TARP warrants (I look at it as the sale of stocks in banks & companies that were given to the government in exchange for stimulus money. Or, rather, sale of the right to buy those stocks at a specific price.).
But again, that'd be just one-time funding, which means a permanent ongoing source of revenue is needed. A possibility is a change to the home mortgage interest deduction subsidy that given mostly to the well-off; Only 25% of taxpayers benefit from it, and the top 32% of those taxpayers receive 72% of the benefits. As a housing subsidy, it's remarkably ill-designed, in 2009 costing over $80 billion, or 2% of federal spending, according to this article.
There are already proposals to modify or remove the deduction, and NLIHC is saying that a slice of this should go to the Trust Fund-particularly since the Trust Fund, when originally proposed, included this funding source.
NLIHC supports a proposal that includes the following:
- Reduce the size of eligible mortgages from $1 million to $500,000. Keep in mind that if your mortgage is $500,001, you'd still see a benefit on that first $500,000-that extra $1 won't qualify for the deduction. This has the benefit of ensuring that the $1 million home is not subsidized needlessly.
- Convert the deduction to a non-refundable tax credit (15%) available to everyone. Basically this reduces the taxpayer's tax bill-no matter if you're a renter or an owner. Hard to argue against that-reduce ineffective subsidies benefiting mostly the well-off and lowering everyone's tax bill.
Of course, there's always someone who has to play the spoilsport. Rep. Royce (R-CA) is proposing to eliminate the Trust Fund. He believes it'll be a "slush fund" for special interest groups.
As NLIHC notes from a recent hearing on the issue:
In his opening statement, Mr. Royce said that the NHTF should be abolished in order to ensure that funds do not flow “to activist organizations who dabble in housing and rental assistance as well as dabble in political activism.” The NHTF statue prohibits the use of NHTF dollars for political activities, lobbying, counseling, outreach, and project administration. Mr. Royce did not stay to hear Ms. Crowley’s testimony.
Don't let facts confuse ya, Royce!
Friday, July 1, 2011
Couples Negotiations-Washington Style
As the debt ceiling looms, both sides are still far apart in negotiating an agreement on raising the debt ceiling. Keep in mind the debt ceiling isn't for future bills, but for bills already incurred by the United States that will need to be paid.
Some politicans are fond of comparing the federal budget-both the deficit and the national debt-to budgets faced by families. Running a deficit, or having a debt, they declare, is clearly a sign of irresponsible planning. Never mind that it's exactly what many households do. Households take out mortgages, take out car loans, charge stuff to the credit card, use installment plans, etc.
But let's take the negotiations metaphor all the way.
My wife and I have an anniversary coming up in a few months. She's a vegetarian, while I enjoy a nice juicy steak. Obviously this presents some difficulties in choosing a restaurant.
Rational negotiations might look something like this:
Mrs. Max: Honey, you know we have our special anniversary coming up soon, right?
Max Max: Huh? Already? Uhhh, yes, sure, I knew that. Where would you like to go for dinner, dear?
Mrs. Max: How about that new Italian restaurant? I hear they have a nice eggplant pasta dish.
Max Max: Let me look at the menu online...sure, they have a fabulous crocodile steak. (I'm more adventuresome in my imagination.)
Mrs. Max: Good, it's settled.
Easy, right? Maybe we might go through two or three restaurants before finding the right place that's good for the both of us.
But let's look at it again, copying what's happening in Washington.
Mrs. Max: Honey, you know we have our special anniversary coming up soon, right?
Max Max: Huh? Sure, I knew that. Why don't we go to that House of Prime Rib?
Mrs. Max: Seriously? That place is all meat, they don't have anything for me. How about Olive Garden? They have some nice meat dishes.
Max Max: I'll give you my veggies at the House of Prime Rib.
Mrs. Max: Oh, come on-I'm asking for a nice place for the both of us-maybe something like Applebee's?
Max Max: No, it's House of Prime Rib or nothing else.
Obviously, I'm going to look like an unreasonable jerk.
But let's take it a step further.
Mrs. Max: Fine, we'll go to that stupid place. I'll have a side salad & some steamed veggies.
Max Max: No, I want to go to Raw Bloody Steaks 'r Us.
Mrs. Max: What? But you wanted House moments ago?!?
Max Max: No, I didn't.
Mrs. Max: Yes, you did! Look, here's the texts from you earlier!
Max Max: Don't believe what I text.
I'm beyond being a jerk, right?
So how is this any better?
Some politicans are fond of comparing the federal budget-both the deficit and the national debt-to budgets faced by families. Running a deficit, or having a debt, they declare, is clearly a sign of irresponsible planning. Never mind that it's exactly what many households do. Households take out mortgages, take out car loans, charge stuff to the credit card, use installment plans, etc.
But let's take the negotiations metaphor all the way.
My wife and I have an anniversary coming up in a few months. She's a vegetarian, while I enjoy a nice juicy steak. Obviously this presents some difficulties in choosing a restaurant.
Rational negotiations might look something like this:
Mrs. Max: Honey, you know we have our special anniversary coming up soon, right?
Max Max: Huh? Already? Uhhh, yes, sure, I knew that. Where would you like to go for dinner, dear?
Mrs. Max: How about that new Italian restaurant? I hear they have a nice eggplant pasta dish.
Max Max: Let me look at the menu online...sure, they have a fabulous crocodile steak. (I'm more adventuresome in my imagination.)
Mrs. Max: Good, it's settled.
Easy, right? Maybe we might go through two or three restaurants before finding the right place that's good for the both of us.
But let's look at it again, copying what's happening in Washington.
Mrs. Max: Honey, you know we have our special anniversary coming up soon, right?
Max Max: Huh? Sure, I knew that. Why don't we go to that House of Prime Rib?
Mrs. Max: Seriously? That place is all meat, they don't have anything for me. How about Olive Garden? They have some nice meat dishes.
Max Max: I'll give you my veggies at the House of Prime Rib.
Mrs. Max: Oh, come on-I'm asking for a nice place for the both of us-maybe something like Applebee's?
Max Max: No, it's House of Prime Rib or nothing else.
Obviously, I'm going to look like an unreasonable jerk.
But let's take it a step further.
Mrs. Max
Max Max: No, I want to go to Raw Bloody Steaks 'r Us.
Mrs. Max: What? But you wanted House moments ago?!?
Max Max: No, I didn't.
Mrs. Max: Yes, you did! Look, here's the texts from you earlier!
Max Max: Don't believe what I text.
I'm beyond being a jerk, right?
So how is this any better?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
