GOP killing affordable housing for the poor

May 22, 2004

Affordable Housing in Crisis

House Republicans who authorized cuts in federal housing subsidies for the poor are now fuming over the bad publicity about the cuts. It's strange that anyone was surprised at the negative reaction. The cuts place tenants in some cities at risk of losing subsidized housing, and financial institutions are beginning to express doubts about continuing to participate in the kinds of development projects that have built much of the nation's affordable housing.

If the lawmakers really regret the damage they have done, there is still time for them to undo it. The recent promise by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to shovel an extra dollop of money into the current program won't do the trick. HUD needs to rethink its hostile approach to paying for the critical Section 8 program, which furnishes rent subsidies for two million of the country's most vulnerable families.

Section 8 has survived the generation-long assault on public housing because it is based partly in the private sector. Rather than building affordable housing itself, the government has guaranteed subsidies for rents in the private market. Families, most of them living at or below the poverty level, pay 30 percent of their incomes toward rent, and Section 8 vouchers pay the remainder. Developers used the Section 8 guarantees as backing when they raised money for low- or mixed-income developments.

But despite its theoretical commitment to the private market, HUD has gotten tired of meeting the fast-rising housing prices in some markets. It announced recently — with Congressional blessing — that it would no longer pay the full cost of the vouchers. It froze federal funds at the level of August 2003, plus an adjustment for inflation.

This is a tactic the Bush administration has used in other areas as it tries to halt open-ended commitments for federal funds in favor of set block grants. A "block grant," however, is simply a cut by another name. Neither the poor nor the local housing authorities have the power to make rents conform to those dictates. In high-cost areas like New York and San Francisco, officials will have trouble finding landlords and builders who will accept Section 8 tenants because the vouchers will no longer provide a predictable level of support. Families who have been lucky enough to get Section 8 help may wind up having to pay more rent.

Perhaps worst of all, the financial community has begun to react. A New England bank has scrapped an innovative home mortgage program aimed at promoting home ownership through Section 8. Wall Street bond traders have warned that the cuts could cause the bond market to lose faith in Section 8-related programs, undermining the bonding process that makes it possible to build affordable housing.

The incomes of the poor do not expand just because real estate values do. If these ill-advised cuts are allowed to stand, a public-private partnership that has been producing affordable housing since the Nixon years will wither and die.

[crawjo]

Chris, I think this editorial is a good example of something that did not need its own thread. You could have just put this in "Today's Editorials" or some similar such thread.

Crawjo,

The time it took you to type that post you will never get back.

Complete lost cause.

While Chris constantly takes pot shots at us, he marches on blissfully obliviously. Even ignoring the pleading from people on his own side.

Who is "us," MN? People who want to keep the poor down? People who embrace chicken hawks? Bush lock-steppers? If so, I don't think Crawjo is one of you.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Everything Bush and cronies are doing is a damn shame.

[Mike Schwartz]

As far as the title of the thread reads, isn't that what they're supposed to do?

Originally Posted by Mike Schwartz

As far as the title of the thread reads, isn't that what they're supposed to do?

I hardly think so, although the Bush crime family would disagree with me.

Originally Posted by Chris A

Who is "us," MN? People who want to keep the poor down? People who embrace chicken hawks? Bush lock-steppers? If so, I don't think Crawjo is one of you.

You get sillier and sillier all the time.

[SinginSumo]

ALSO:

GOP DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT

GOP DESTROYING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS COSTS FOR SENIORS, DISABLED & POOR

GOP DESTROYING INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT FOR ITS FOREIGN POLICY

GOP KILLING STEM CELL RESEARCH (that could potentially benefit human beings universally)

GOP DESTROYING ECONOMY BY NOT CONTAINING RUNAWAY FUEL PRICES

GOP DESTROYING FUNDAMENTAL SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND STATE (WITH POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS, RESPECT TO RATIONALE FOR IRAQ WAR, etc.)

GOP KILLING THE MIDDLE CLASS BY SQUEEZING IT BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE IGNORANT & STUPID

I could fill pages with what the present administration is "killing." I thought nothing could be worse than a Reagan presidency and/or a Quayle vice-presidency. I was wrong.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by SinginSumo

ALSO:

GOP DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT

GOP DESTROYING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS COSTS FOR SENIORS, DISABLED & POOR

GOP DESTROYING INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT FOR ITS FOREIGN POLICY

GOP KILLING STEM CELL RESEARCH (that could potentially benefit human beings universally)

GOP DESTROYING ECONOMY BY NOT CONTAINING RUNAWAY FUEL PRICES

GOP DESTROYING FUNDAMENTAL SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND STATE (WITH POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS, RESPECT TO RATIONALE FOR IRAQ WAR, etc.)

GOP KILLING THE MIDDLE CLASS BY SQUEEZING IT BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE IGNORANT & STUPID

I could fill pages with what the present administration is "killing." I thought nothing could be worse than a Reagan presidency and/or a Quayle vice-presidency. I was wrong.

Geez, I read your post and expected to look out my window and find my neighborhood in flames, corpses scattered everywhere. Nope, everything's okay here in Scotia. The middle class seems to be doing okay tonight, despite the fact that it is being "squeezed" between rich and stupid people.

Also, are you saying that you support John Kerry's suggestion that we open up the nation's petroleum reserves to ease gas prices? That seems like it would set a bad precedent--the reserves should be saved for actual emergencies, not inconveniences.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Geez, I read your post and expected to look out my window and find my neighborhood in flames, corpses scattered everywhere. Nope, everything's okay here in Scotia. The middle class seems to be doing okay tonight, despite the fact that it is being "squeezed" between rich and stupid people.

How fortunate for you. But what if you were to look beyond the view from your window, and what if you were to consider the other items on Sumo's list?

As for flames and corpses, you'll have to read the news.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

How fortunate for you. But what if you were to look beyond the view from your window, and what if you were to consider the other items on Sumo's list?

As for flames and corpses, you'll have to read the news.

Well, if the GOP is destroying everything, then how is anything left?

[Uli]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Well, if the GOP is destroying everything, then how is anything left?

Maybe an English teacher could explain it better. imho, when the GOP *will have* destroyed everything, nothing will be left. I don't think decent American people will go for it. Just a few bad apples, maybe.

[john williams]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Well, if the GOP is destroying everything, then how is anything left?

You outsmarted yourself methinks.

[crawjo]

This is the sort of nonsense that I just can't understand. Do you people honestly believe that the differences between the two parties are so great that if the GOP were to remain in power the country would be destroyed? On what evidence do you base this fanaticism? I'm no fan of the Republican Party, but I just don't understand this mindset at all. Particularly when it comes to domestic issues, it seems to me that there is very little difference between the two parties. Who signed the Defense of Marriage Act? Who instigated welfare reform? A Democratic president. Where is the evidence that the "middle class" is being "squeezed"? And why are liberals always talking about these economic "classes" as if they are all distinct entities: the "rich" versus the "poor" etc. etc. During their lifetime, my parents have lived in every economic bracket, and I don't think their case is very unusual. I know that three years ago, my wife and I probably would have been considered "poor." Now we are in the dreaded "middle class" that is allegedly being squeezed. Well, I don't feel squeezed.

I do feel, however, that if you really believe that the decisions on the economy, fuel, etc. that are being made in Washington are having a drastic impact on your life, and that they are in the process of "destroying" our society, then you are operating under a delusion. It is this sort of nonsense that poisons the political discourse in our country. Each side believes the other is out to "destroy" everything they hold near and dear. And meanwhile, the machine keeps running, the political volleyball keeps getting batted back and forth, and what actually changes? If George W. Bush wins reelection, and the Republicans retain control of Congress, then you tell me where this country will be in four years. Make a prediction.

I apologize for going on this rant, but it's late and I really am honestly flummoxed by this sort of mindset that actually seems to believe that the two political parties are somehow diametrically opposed to each other, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The destruction goes way beyond mishandled economy, Crawjo, and, if Bush is allowed to "stay the course," it will eventually reaches beyond the very poor. True, the two parties are in many ways similar, but there are also vast ideological differences between them and the caliber of politician they attract. I think the entire system of government needs a serious overhaul, starting with the electoral process, but until it reaches a point where the voters have had enough, we are saddled with self-serving, myopic representatives on the Hill. The best we can do under the present circumstances is to weigh one possibility against the other, and I see no balance on my scale. Look at what the Bush regime has done in the past three and a half years. Look at every aspect of its chameleonic policies, look at how we are regarded throughout the world. It's not a pretty picture, is it? A small group of neocons with an agenda have led us to the edge of a cliff, and Bush wants to "stay the course."

How you can argue on the side of that is, to say the very least, puzzling.

[SinginSumo]

Originally Posted by Uli

Maybe an English teacher could explain it better. imho, when the GOP *will have* destroyed everything, nothing will be left. I don't think decent American people will go for it. Just a few bad apples, maybe.

I've been an English teacher at every level from kindergarten through college and adult learners. I think you communicated what you intended very effectively, Uli.

[SinginSumo]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Geez, I read your post and expected to look out my window and find my neighborhood in flames, corpses scattered everywhere. Nope, everything's okay here in Scotia. The middle class seems to be doing okay tonight, despite the fact that it is being "squeezed" between rich and stupid people.

Also, are you saying that you support John Kerry's suggestion that we open up the nation's petroleum reserves to ease gas prices? That seems like it would set a bad precedent--the reserves should be saved for actual emergencies, not inconveniences.

I submitted 8 specifics and you assumed/inferred a generalized Armageddon for America. You would do well to address these specifics.

I think that the action in Iraq coupled with never-ending greed of the oil companies along with supply & demand issues have all had their effect on rising petroleum prices, most of it opportunistic. Where did I mention or infer anything about petroleum reserves in my post?

The "squeeze" mentioned had to do with how the sitting president is marketing his campaign to the rich, the religious fundamentalists and to the politically unsophisticated and easily led. The overwhelming majority, the middle class, has its hands full with this administration taking the wrong approach on virtually everything consistently. The specifics were the first half a dozen or so to come to mind.

As for flames and corpses, I recommend that you don't attend any Iraqi marriage ceremonies in the forseeable future or that you seek employment in Iraq to help "rebuild" their country. You are looking in the wrong place - don't look out your window; look at the nightly news and in news magazines.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by SinginSumo

I submitted 8 specifics and you assumed/inferred a generalized Armageddon for America. You would do well to address these specifics.

I think that the action in Iraq coupled with never-ending greed of the oil companies along with supply & demand issues have all had their effect on rising petroleum prices, most of it opportunistic. Where did I mention or infer anything about petroleum reserves in my post?

The "squeeze" mentioned had to do with how the sitting president is marketing his campaign to the rich, the religious fundamentalists and to the politically unsophisticated and easily led. The overwhelming majority, the middle class, has its hands full with this administration taking the wrong approach on virtually everything consistently. The specifics were the first half a dozen or so to come to mind.

As for flames and corpses, I recommend that you don't attend any Iraqi marriage ceremonies in the forseeable future or that you seek employment in Iraq to help "rebuild" their country. You are looking in the wrong place - don't look out your window; look at the nightly news and in news magazines.

Your tirade was directed at domestic issues, not Iraq. As for the "wedding party", there is now very good reason to doubt that it was a wedding at all. I am surprised that you can be so easily led.

I didn't address any of your points specifically because there was no evidence or argument to back them up. They were just statements. A harangue, if you will.

Can you give me an example of how Bush's campaign for reelection is targeting the rich? Maybe you could link to an ad or speech that is intended to convince "the rich" to vote for him.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by crawjo

As for the "wedding party", there is now very good reason to doubt that it was a wedding at all. I am surprised that you can be so easily led.

News this morning were, that there is now a video out of the wedding. I still don't know if there was a wedding or not. But it seems to me, you're the one who is easily lead.

[Al in NYC]

As for the "wedding party", there is now very good reason to doubt that it was a wedding at all.

Well, except for the inconvenient fact that the attack killed one of Iraq's best known wedding singers and 4 members of his band. But then I guess they must have been secret "terrists."

If was definitely not a wedding party. If so, why would there have been musical instruments on the scene? We all know that music is a terrorist weapon! And that wedding party video is of course staged, a clever play by those sneaky, ungrateful Iraqis.

Crawjo, I think your hot and cold feelings re Bush are playing tricks on your mind (i.e. allowing the Bush spin in).

Mr. Chris A, I think some facts are in order here. Your playing the partisan card that is at the root of the divisiveness of our country. Crawjo is on record as asking the hard questions, asking the tough, questions, and asking about the legitimacy of weddings. At this time as at every time in our nation weddings are the province of a man and a woman. That’s just plain fact! Because our nation is getting better and better. I also look out my window and see good things, not the divisiveness that activist critics of our American people are sometimes working to undermine at times.

Crawjo,

Let me lay out some basic facts for you.

People like you and I, and maybe a couple of others here live a life of decadence. The problem with the exremely wealthy, like us, is that we can't see the squalor of the inner city from the windows high atop our golden palaces. So therefore I have to agree with what Chris , Sumo, and Rita are saying here.

We have no clue what it means to struggle, because we've been handed everything on a silver platter.

You see, people like Chris and Rita live in some of the worst and most violent slums in America, so naturally they are faced with this reality everyday, and rightfully point out how blissfully unaware you are to it. I guess I kinda feel sorry for both of them, I'm sure it's a tough and nasty life to lead.

I mean, I accidently stepped on this homeless dude the other day while I was leaving one of the art shops downtown. The guy just looks up at me and says "hey man, can't you even say you're sorry"? After the knee jerk revulsion of not only steeping on, but actually being addressed by a homeless thing, I simply turned and walked away. I can't explain it, but not only could I NOT apologize(besides, what the hell was he doing just laying there in the alley?), but I couldn't even speak to him at all. Needless to say, I took an incredibly long bubble bath when I got home.

Point is, I think we need to lighten up a little, brother. Fact is, we CAN'T see whats really going on out there.




Oh, and I totally agree. A "rumored" video and music instruments most definitely PROVES it was a wedding party. Absolutely no question there. And the passports and boatload of money they found there was because the poor and impoverished Iraqi newlyweds were preparing for their Tahitian honeymoon.

Go choke on a french fry.

[clinthopson]

I don't understand what all the flap is about.

Any poor person with a half-million bucks can get a home right here in beautiful Orange County, California.

Originally Posted by clinthopson

I don't understand what all the flap is about.

Any poor person with a half-million bucks can get a home right here in beautiful Orange County, California.

Exactly!!

[crawjo]

Ah yes, the dead wedding singer. And what was his name? Was it Hussein Ali, as reported in the New York Times, or was it Nazar al-Khalid, as reported in the Washington Post?

And why are the eye-witness accounts so contradictory? One witness said that "the wedding party was in full swing" when fighter jets and U.S. vehicles shined their headlights on the partiers. Everyone dispersed and hid in the tent, which was bombed five hours later.

Then another witness said that the attack came after the revelers fired their weapons in the air.

I mean, I know that different witnesses will offer different testimonies to any event, but a disparity of five hours is really a bit much, don't you think?

[crawjo]

Here is a helpful New York Times editorial on the controversy. It seems that the the leader of the village was an anti-American fighter, and many members of the groom's party were known smugglers. Maybe both stories are true. Maybe they are anti-American forces who decided to have a wedding.

Video shows destruction at Iraq wedding party

Monday, 24 May , 2004, 15:15

Baghdad: The US-led coalition said there were inconsistencies over a US airstrike in Iraq it said targeted foreign fighters, after Arab TV channels aired fresh images of death and destruction from a video Monday.

The footage supplied by the US Associated Press Television News shows a decorated wedding vehicle and Arab guests arriving for the celebrations, following Iraqi claims that a marriage party was hit in the strike.

Musicians play drums and a keyboard synthesiser as men and children dance. But the picture cuts to the dead body of a man shown earlier playing the keyboard.

He lies in the back of a pickup truck as men load what appears to be another corpse wrapped in a sheets into vehicle.

Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera channels showed people picking through the rubble of a razed house surrounded by desert sands. A series of tents have been flattened and household goods lie strewn around.

The stations commented that Associated Press could not guarantee the authenticity of the video it had acquired. Confronted with the new tape, the ruling coalition in Iraq stressed that inconsistencies between the two versions of events remain, despite sticking to its conviction that the airstrike did not hit a wedding party.

"There are some inconsistencies. We don't deny anything. We're open to new evidence. We still don't believe there was a wedding party going on," one official told reporters.

The source also said that most of the footage in the video was filmed during the day, whereas the raid took place at 3:00 am (2300 GMT) Wednesday.

On Saturday, US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt acknowledged that six women were among 41 people killed in the attack, but said forces had not seen bodies of children.

Kimmitt said US forces who scoured the area of the combined ground and air attack in the western Iraqi desert had found "no evidence of a wedding," but did not rule out some other kind of social gathering.

"Bad people have parties too and it may have... just been a meeting in the middle of the desert by some people that were conducting either criminal or terrorist activities," he said.

Troops on the ground had discovered items such as "terrorist training manuals", military binoculars, foreign passports, medical equipment and possible narcotics, and dormitory-style accommodation for 300 people, he said.

Kimmitt repeated that the attack was based on intelligence that insurgents were gathering in the remote desert near the Syrian border, and reiterated that US ground forces came under fire before calling in the airstrike.

Al-Arabiya has already aired footage of bodies wrapped in blankets and loaded on trucks, and quoted witnesses as saying that aircraft also destroyed other houses apart from the venue of the wedding party.

Kimmitt added that the terrain shown in the footage on television did not match that around the scene of the attack, saying he believed the bodies were filmed in Ramadi, closer to the capital.