Would YOU pee in a cup?

Ezra Klein had an excellent summary of Suzane Mettler's new book, The Submerged State.  This line from Ezra's post caught my eye:

The more a government social program benefits wealthier Americans, the less obtrusive it is. We design policies for the poor in ways that make it hard to escape the knowledge that the government is providing help. But richer Americans rely on programs that are “submerged.”

This is of particular interest to me because an increasing pet peeve of mine is the inability of most non-poor Americans to recognize that they're recipients of government programs.  Very often the sentiment is that, "if they want my tax-payer money, they have to do..." things such as drug testing, jump through hoops, etc.  Yet the same people don't recognize that they themselves receive financial assistance as well from the government.

The largest housing subsidy program is the home mortgage interest deduction.  What do you think the reaction would be if millions of homeowners were forced to pee in a cup for drug testing?

For her book “The Submerged State,” she asked a scientifically selected sample of 1,400 Americans whether they had ever used a government social program. Only 43 percent copped to having done so. Then she read off 21 social programs, such as Medicare and the home-mortgage interest deduction, and asked the same question again: Have you ever used a government social program? This time, 96 percent said yes, in fact, they had.

Fact Check Gets It Wrong

There's a value in having fact-checking organizations like FactCheck, Snopes, PolitiFact, etc.  It's good to have a somewhat neutral organization attempt to evaluate claims objectively.

Which is why it's so exasperating when they bend over backwards or rely on arcane details to "prove" something that isn't so.  Case in point:  "Obama's Trillion Dollar Exaggeration".

Let's go to details.  Eugene Kiely is looking at some stump speeches by President Obama regarding President Bush's "temporary" tax cuts (which has been extended already).  January 24, he said "Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans."  In another speech cited by FactCheck on Feb 13, he used the word "scheduled."

For those of you not familiar with the effects of President Bush's tax cuts, it was a massive revenue cut that sent us spiraling from a surplus into seemingly endless deficit spending.  As noted earlier, Congress already extended it using the logic it'd hurt the economy if it was allowed to expire.  And why does it expire?  It was an accounting trick the Republicans in power used to avoid needing a certain threshold of votes to pass it. The extension was for two years.

FactCheck's position is that since the tax cuts are scheduled to automatically expire, it cannot be true that we're "scheduled" or "poised" to spend money.

While it's true that President Obama shouldn't have used the words "scheduled to spend", "poised to spend" IS accurate.  Does anyone doubt that Congress will move mountains to attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts again? 

FactCheck used an example:

But saving money is not the same thing as spending money if the payments are automatically scheduled to stop. By the president’s logic, a car owner is scheduled to spend $36,000 in car payments over the next 10 years, even though the $300 monthly car payments are due to end on Dec. 31, 2012. Unless, of course, the car owner goes out and buys a new car. Likewise, the only way the tax cut can be extended beyond 2012 is if Obama signs a law extending it, or if Congress overrides his veto — or if Obama loses reelection and the next president retroactively reinstates the tax cut.

That's actually a good example.  But the car owner (many in Congress) is doing research on the new cars, and taking cars out on test drives.  The owner's talking about models, options, and accessories.  Wouldn't you say the owner is "poised" to spend the money?

More Tenant Protection Rollbacks

Not content with rolling back tenant protections in communities ("local control" my ass), the Republican legislature is at it again with two bills to further reduce the rights tenants have.

First up, courtesy of Representative Stroebel, who just happens to be a landlord himself (coincidence, I'm sure), we have SB466 and AB561(which doesn't seem to be online yet).  The most dangerous part of this bill, according to a lawyer, is that:

Currently, what a landlord may deduct from a tenant's security deposit when the tenant vacates the premises is specified, not in the statutes, but in the Wisconsin Administrative Code (Code). The bill incorporates the Code provisions into the statutes and thus provides that a landlord may deduct amounts from a security deposit for tenant damage to the premises, unpaid rent, unpaid utility services for which the tenant was responsible, any unpaid monthly municipal permit fees, and any other reason provided in a nonstandard rental provision to which the tenant has agreed. A landlord specifically may not deduct amounts from a security deposit for normal wear and tear.

Currently the Administrative Code allows the tenant some defense in form of double damages when a landlord acts illegally.  Moving this into the state statues would remove enforcement/punishment power on the part of the state.

The Wisconsin Alliance for Tenant's Rights summarizes the bill as:

What the bill would do:
- Remove the right of local cities and counties from prohibiting landlords from evicting under certain circumstances (i.e. winter)
- If a landlord gets caught with an illegal provision in their lease, only that provision is voided, not the entire lease
- Allows leases to be “signed” upon by fax or email
- If you leave any property behind when you move out, the landlord may sell it or throw it out without notification to you, unless you agreed to something different in writing. And then, they can charge you for any costs involved.
- Changes the remedies for when a landlord fails to disclose repair problems with the apartment—removing double damages court costs and attorney fees.
- The landlord has to provide a standardized check-in sheet with an itemized description of condition of the property at check--in
- The right to a lien is removed from the law.
- Mandatory double the daily rent if you stay past the date of a 5 or 14 day notice or end of your lease.- Removes double damages, court costs and reasonable attorney fees for failure to return security deposit -a tenant can only get single damages.
- Allows a landlord to take any money out of your security deposit that you “agree to” in a non-standard rental provision. Including flat fees and charges that would currently be illegal.
- Allows landlord to collect your rent after you have fallen behind and still seek an eviction even if you are paid in full.

Next up, we have another proposed bill from Representative Honandel, LRB 2098.  Short summary:  Don't think of even getting a ticket while renting or the landlord will have cause to evict you.  In fact, there's concern that if someone comes into your apartment and beat you up (AKA domestic violence, burglary, etc.), the landlord can evict you.

The combined effect of Act 108, SB466/AB561, LRB 2098 would be to give landlords unprecedented power to get rid of tenants, even for causes unrelated to their residency in the unit.  In fact, the language is so broad that it'd be very easy for a disapproving landlord to get rid of a tenant who would otherwise be protected under either Fair Housing Act or Wisconsin's Open Housing law.

Landlords already have a set of tools available to them to get rid of problem tenants.  Those tools can be cumbersome at times, but tenants are protected from bad landlords this way, in a small way.  But those actions would dramatically change the checks and balances in the landlord-tenant relationship.  My frustration with many landlord-advocates is that many flatly refused to admit, in discussions, that there are such a thing as bad landlords.  Apparently those legislators don't acknowlege that, either.

AB 561 apparently is already scheduled for a hearing, despite being newly introduced and not even available online yet.  Senate version to follow same day.  Think about it.  Introduced on the 13th, hearing already scheduled on the 15th, while many other bills (cough *jobs bills* cough) languish in committees.

Assembly Housing Committee Hearing
2/15 11am 400 Northeast State Capitol

Senate Insurance and Housing Committee Hearing and Possible Vote
... Wednesday, February 15, 2012
2:05 PM
201 Southeast
State Capitol 

  

Communities, Planning & Activitism

The Atlantic Cities has an article by Anthony Flint, "How the Tea Party is Upending Urban Planning".  It looks at the activism of the Tea Party in local communities.  It begins, fittingly enough, with a recounting of how legendary urban activist Jane Jacobs spoke at a planning meeting insisting that the community have a real voice in the process, rather than the usual rubber-stamping that typically happened back then.

Flash forward to today's Tea Party.  Given the libertarian tendencies of the Tea Party, it's not surprising that those activists are opposing planning efforts.  Environment safety?  Nah.  Growth management?  Forget about it.  Rail?  Not a chance in hell.   Climate Change?  No such thing.  Smart Growth?  Why, that's Communism!

Of course, give the bias in the article, written by a planner, it's natural that the author would cast a critical eye on people that are opposed to the very work he does.

But, still...it's hard to take seriously people who ramble about "Agenda 21" and call people UN Agents.  See this (particularly comments) for a taste of their perspective on this. 

The way I've seen planning work in many hearings often involves making changes to proposed developments or projects to satisfy community concerns.  Sometimes this unnecessarily drives up the cost ("those homes must be brick or stone all the way around") and sometimes objections may be based in prejudice and misinformation (New Berlin). The author wrote at the end:

Yet, as in national politics, the Tea Party view doesn’t leave room for compromise. Even the most open-minded and free-speech supporting planner can’t operate when the framework for the dialogue itself has been invalidated. Where does one go from there?

So what's the answer? Ignore them?  That presents a peril of its own as planning commissions often have elected officials on them in addition to citizen members.

In the words of Jane Jacobs in 1952:

The other threat to the security of our tradition, I believe, lies at home. It is the current fear of radical ideas and of people who propound them. I do not agree with the extremists of either the left or the right, but I think they should be allowed to speak and to publish, both because they themselves have, and ought to have, rights, and once their rights are gone, the rights of the rest of us are hardly safe …

 I left out the other half of the ending paragraph from the author, Anthony Flint, a while ago.  The other half was:

The skirmishes at town halls around the country over the past year or so means that planners will have to try even harder to make their case. But in the mean time, the chairman of that sleepy planning board hearing might be eying the exits, looking for a black helicopter, to make a run for it.

"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. 

I Pay More State IncomeTaxes than Rockwell Automation

And you probably do, too.  Details from the Institute for Wisconsin's Future.

More on Senator Johnson and Regulations

I blogged recently about Senator Johnson's obession with the mythical regulation problem and how misguided his actions are. 

Two more articles on this from Kevin Drum and Tanya Somander which add to a series of posts and articles around the web on the convenient timing of the Republican war on regulations (in that they only seem to worry about it when the President is a "D").



....And how could I forget the definitive smack-down on this?  Somehow, I doubt this and other documentation will persuade the good Senator from Wisconsin.

Senator Johnson's Misguided War on Regulations

Week after week, Senator Johnson in his newsletters lambastes the supposed effect of regulations on jobs.  He has even introduced a bill, S1438, Regulation Moratorium and Jobs Preservation Act of 2011, which would "Prohibits any federal agency from taking any significant regulatory action until the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports a monthly unemployment rate equal to or less than 7.7%. "

Senator Johnson apparently is firm in his belief that regulations are, to use a favorite Republican phrase, "job-killing."  The truth?  Not so much.

First up, the Washington Post fact-checked a recent Republican presidential debate in which this issue was brought up.  Their conclusion?

THE FACTS: Labor Department data show that only a tiny percentage of companies that experience large layoffs cite government regulation as the reason. Since Barack Obama took office, just two-tenths of 1 percent of layoffs have been due to government regulation, the data show.

Businesses frequently complain about regulation, but there is little evidence that it is any worse now than in the past or that it is costing significant numbers of jobs. Most economists believe there is a simpler explanation: Companies aren’t hiring because there isn’t enough consumer demand.

Mother Jones did a similar investigation into this, finding that the effects of regulation on jobs are likely not great, and ended with:

"The issue in regulation always should be whether it delivers benefits that justify the cost," said Noll. "The effect of regulation on jobs has nothing to do with the mess we're in. The current rhetoric about regulation killing jobs is nothing more than not letting a good crisis go to waste."

Senator Johnson, in discussing his bill, stated:

Under the Obama administration, each year the government implements an average of 84 "economically-significant" new regulations, ones that each cost the economy $100 million or more annually.

There are more than 4,000 new regulations now being written, including hundreds of economically-significant ones, but any one of them is significant if it's the one that overturns your business model. If you were a worried entrepreneur, would you be eager to hire amid such uncertainty?

But what he leaves unsaid is that President Bush had a higher pace of economically significant regulatory activities. 

Let's see:  President Obama isn't doing as many regulations as his predecessor did, and regulations rarely are "job-killing" in the first place.  Plus they often deliver public benefits!  That isn't to say that there aren't regulations that are outdated or ill-thought, something the Obama administration is already tackling. 

Update:  An inappropriate remark was removed.

Just Think

Less money on housing and transportation = more money on useless junk that fuels the economy!  Plus charity to support all those sick people that Republicans are saying should depend on charity not taxpayers.

Highway Priorities

According to this study, via Ezra Klein's Wonkblog, 43% of the average state transportation budget went to repairing 98.7% of roads, meaning that 57%  of the budget went toward highway expansion and new construction for just 1.3% of the roads.  The study, Repair Priorities, from Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense, analyzed that Wisconsin spent $429 million annually in road repair and preservation between 2004-2008, but that $685 million annually was needed. 

Using highway data, it estimates that 51% of Wisconsin's roads were rated as being in good condition.  While 51% isn't that great, it's better than the national average of 47%.  That "the nation as a whole earned a D- for road conditions on the 2009 American Society of Civil Engineers report card" is not a good sign.

As the Wonkblog's Brad Plumer noted, there was another paper with a more detailed case for "Fix It First" by Matthew Kahn( UCLA) and David Levinson (University of Minnesota).  Titled Fix It First, Expand It Second, Reward it Third, the paper outlines a new strategy for the nation's highways.  What's interesting is that it discusses how roads tend to stay in good quality for a long time, then its quality drops suddenly as it starts to fall apart.  If enough funding is provided to maintain roads, that period of good quality can last longer.  Replacing a road costs substantially more than the cost of repairing it.

As Governor Walker is so fond of saying, Wisconsin is broke.  So shouldn't we prioritize our highway funding to get more bang for the buck? 

Another aspect is that new highway construction and expansion adds more sprawl, more inefficient land use.

Imagine This in Milwaukee

Can you imagine something like this happening in the Milwaukee metro area?  Even though we've seen some major highway work, there's still plenty of work that could be done, particularly with bridges, dams, and tracks.  Not to mention the fact that Atlanta area is spending so much money, 52% of $6.14 billion (yes, "b") on mass transit.

Shut Out, Priced Out & Segregated

The Metro Fair Housing Services in Georgia published a report, Shut Out, Priced Out, and Segregated: The Need for Fair Housing for People With Disabilities.  It looks at housing issues that people with disabilities face-accessibility, affordability, and integration.

It, in particular, does a thorough job of documenting the need for Visitability, which is no surprise as Atlanta is home to the "Mother of Visitability", Eleanor Smith and the organization she founded, Concrete Change.

Check it out.