ucdwyer's Xanga Site

← Previous Post

January 20, 2004

An Assault on Housing Vouchers

he Bush administration, which created a record budget deficit partly through tax cuts for the rich, is threatening to make up some of the difference by cutting desperately needed programs aimed at the poor. One candidate for the chopping block is Section 8, the federal rent-subsidy program whose main purpose is preventing low-income families from becoming homeless.

The Section 8 voucher program subsidizes families who rent apartments in the private market. The renters, most of whom live at or below the poverty level, pay 30 percent of their incomes toward rent, and the voucher covers the remainder.

At the moment, the program covers about 2.1 million households. Most of these families include minor children; 40 percent include elderly or disabled people. Section 8 came about during the 1970′s, when the government began to move from housing needy people in publicly owned developments to housing them in private housing, through rent vouchers and construction subsidies. The most recent data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, based in Washington, shows that the average rent on a two-bedroom apartment has risen by 37 percent since 1999. The yearly cost of the voucher program has reached $14 billion – and will grow as long as housing costs continue to rise faster than incomes.

Like health care, housing has become a necessity priced out of the reach of many families, particularly the working poor. It is understandable that the government should look at the cost of housing programs with concern. But the one unacceptable option is simply to decide to let people fend for themselves.

Even now, families sometimes wait for years for vouchers, which become available when current voucher holders die or get better jobs and become ineligible for subsidies. By some estimates, only one in four families who actually qualify for Section 8 vouchers receives them. Given that the affordable housing crisis is likely to become worse as time goes by, anything that makes it harder to house poor families is by definition a disastrous idea.

—————————————————

—————————————————

January 20, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST

Going for Broke
By PAUL KRUGMAN

ccording to advance reports, George Bush will use tonight’s State of the Union speech to portray himself as a visionary leader who stands above the political fray. But that act is losing its effectiveness. Mr. Bush’s relentless partisanship has depleted much of the immense good will he enjoyed after 9/11. He is still adored by his base, but he is deeply distrusted by much of the nation.

Mr. Bush may not understand this; indeed, he still seems to think that he’s another Lincoln or F.D.R. “No president has done more for human rights than I have,” he told Ken Auletta.

But his political handlers seem to have decided on a go-for-broke strategy: confuse the middle one last time, energize the base and grab enough power that the consequences don’t matter.

What do I mean by confusing the middle? The striking thing about the “visionary” proposals floated in advance of the State of the Union is their transparent cynicism and lack of realism. Mr. Bush has, of course, literally promised us the Moon — and Mars, too. And the ever-deferential media have managed to keep a straight face.

But that’s just the most dramatic example of an array of policy proposals that don’t withstand even minimal scrutiny. Mr. Bush has already pushed through an expensive new Medicare benefit — without any visible source of financing. Reports say that tonight he’ll propose additional, and even more expensive, new initiatives, like partial Social Security privatization — which all by itself would require at least $1 trillion in extra funds over the next decade. Where is all this money going to come from?

Judging from the latest CBS/New York Times Poll, these promises of something for nothing aren’t likely to convince many people. It’s not just that the bounce from Saddam’s capture has already gone away. Unfavorable views of Mr. Bush as a person have reached record levels for his presidency. It seems fair to say that many Americans, like most of the rest of the world, simply don’t trust him anymore.

But some Americans will respond to upbeat messages, no matter how unrealistic. And that may be enough for Mr. Bush, because while he poses as someone above the fray, he is continuing to solidify his base.

The most sinister example was the recess appointment of Charles Pickering Sr., with his segregationist past and questionable record on voting rights, to the federal appeals court — the day after Martin Luther King’s actual birthday. Was this careless timing? Don’t be silly: it was a deliberate, if subtle, gesture of sympathy with a part of the Republican coalition that never gets mentioned in public.

A less objectionable but equally calculated gesture will be Mr. Bush’s demand that his tax cuts be made permanent. Realistically, this can’t make any difference to the economy now, and it makes no sense, given the array of new spending plans he will simultaneously unveil. But it’s a signal to the base that any seeming moderation needn’t be taken seriously, and that the administration’s hard-right turn will continue.

Meanwhile, the lying has already begun, with the Republican National Committee’s willful misrepresentation of Wesley Clark’s prewar statements. (Why are news organizations letting them get away with this?)

The question we should ask is, Where is all this leading?

Some cynical pundits think that Mr. Bush’s advisers plan to leave the hard work of dealing with the mess he’s made to future presidents. But I don’t think that’s right. I can’t see how the budget can continue along its current path through a second Bush term — financial markets won’t stand for it.

And what about the growing military crisis? The mess in Iraq has placed our volunteer military, a magnificent but fragile institution, under immense strain. National Guard and Reserve members find themselves effectively drafted as full-time soldiers. More than 40,000 soldiers whose enlistment terms have expired have been kept from leaving under “stop loss” orders. This can’t go on for four more years.

Karl Rove and other insiders must know all this. So they must figure that once they have won the election, they will have such a complete lock on power that they can break many of their promises with impunity.

What will they do with that lock on power? Their election strategy — confuse the middle, but feed the base — suggests the answer.

————————————————————-

————————————————————-