3:54 PM
Julio Barreto
Congress returns from its spring recess to begin further discussions on a FY 2012 budget that includes concrete provisions to reduce Federal spending. In exchange for support for increasing the debt limit, Members of Congress from both parties are pressuring the White House and congressional leadership to agree to a spending plan that addresses deficit reduction in a real way.
For local housing providers receiving Federal funds, both the politics and the economics of the deficit reduction discussions means fewer funds in spite of efforts to garner congressional support for Federal programs. During the congressional recess, national groups have galvanized their members to express dismay over the cuts approved in the FY 2011 budget agreement and their opposition to further cuts in the FY 2012 budget. While these efforts are necessary they will prove fruitless and frustrating.
The White House and the congressional leadership of both parties have already conceptually agreed Federal spending should be reduced. Vice President Joe Biden has begun the first of a series of meetings with congressional Republicans and Democrats designed to reach an accord on deficit spending prior to the deadline to raise the debt limit. The decision by the House Republican leadership not to pursue changes to Medicare increases the likelihood that the framework of an agreement can be reached.
Meeting parallel to the Biden group is the “Gang of Six” – a bipartisan collection of senators committed to reaching an agreement on deficit reduction that could serve as a template for all parties to support. This group comprises Democrats Dick Durbin of Illinois, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and Mark Warner of Virginia and Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and Mike Crapo of Idaho.
Why does this matter? The bipartisan effort to reduce spending leaves housing advocates with few “back room” supporters to champion their concerns. The cuts to programs are inevitable. There are two fundamental questions housing providers need to determine: how deep will the cuts be? How to respond to these cuts?
It is difficult to answer for certainty the first question; however, one can look to the cuts agreed to in the FY 2011 budget to get an idea of what programs will be targeted. For example, public housing was cut more deeply than other programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) while tenant-based vouchers received an increase. Vouchers have received strong support because it gives the recipient an opportunity to “choose” where to live. As discussions for next year’s budget proceed, it is safe to estimate public housing funds will remain static at best or bear the brunt of further reductions.
This leads to the second question: how to respond to these cuts? It is in the industry’s best interest to more aggressively pursue regulatory and legislative changes to fundamentally change how public housing is funding and administered. There are efforts to reduce the administrative and regulatory burden of small agencies (those with less than 500 units) being pursued by the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA) and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO). They are joined by the Council of Large Public Housing Agencies (CLPHA) to expand the Moving-to-work program which allows housing authorities to combine their funding allocation and dispense the resources in a way which meets local need. These groups are also in discussion with HUD to identify regulatory and administrative changes to ease the burden on local agencies.
All of these efforts are important but they will only succeed if advocates for these program confront the political and economic reality – cuts combined with spending freezes means there must be out-of-the-box thinking if these programs are going to continue to provide a service to those in need.
Multigenerational Housing Increasing
The American Association of Retired People (AARP) Public Policy Institute recently released a report which showed an increase in the number of multigenerational households residing in the United States. The number increased from 6.2 million in 2008 to 7.1 million in 2010. There were 5 million multigenerational households in 2000.
The report cites an analysis by the Pew Research Center which states that one in five adults between the ages of 25 to 34 live in multigenerational households. Hispanics, African-Americans and Asians are more likely to live in multigenerational households than whites.
Interesting Read
Medicare fight exposes House GOP’s internal rifts
By David Rogers
Politico
Lawmaker Proposes Federal Hiring Freeze
By Emily Long
GovExec.com
Waiting Game
By Charlie Cook
National Journal
The Cook Report: Taking On Obama
By Charlie Cook
National Journal
For local housing providers receiving Federal funds, both the politics and the economics of the deficit reduction discussions means fewer funds in spite of efforts to garner congressional support for Federal programs. During the congressional recess, national groups have galvanized their members to express dismay over the cuts approved in the FY 2011 budget agreement and their opposition to further cuts in the FY 2012 budget. While these efforts are necessary they will prove fruitless and frustrating.
The White House and the congressional leadership of both parties have already conceptually agreed Federal spending should be reduced. Vice President Joe Biden has begun the first of a series of meetings with congressional Republicans and Democrats designed to reach an accord on deficit spending prior to the deadline to raise the debt limit. The decision by the House Republican leadership not to pursue changes to Medicare increases the likelihood that the framework of an agreement can be reached.
Meeting parallel to the Biden group is the “Gang of Six” – a bipartisan collection of senators committed to reaching an agreement on deficit reduction that could serve as a template for all parties to support. This group comprises Democrats Dick Durbin of Illinois, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and Mark Warner of Virginia and Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and Mike Crapo of Idaho.
Why does this matter? The bipartisan effort to reduce spending leaves housing advocates with few “back room” supporters to champion their concerns. The cuts to programs are inevitable. There are two fundamental questions housing providers need to determine: how deep will the cuts be? How to respond to these cuts?
It is difficult to answer for certainty the first question; however, one can look to the cuts agreed to in the FY 2011 budget to get an idea of what programs will be targeted. For example, public housing was cut more deeply than other programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) while tenant-based vouchers received an increase. Vouchers have received strong support because it gives the recipient an opportunity to “choose” where to live. As discussions for next year’s budget proceed, it is safe to estimate public housing funds will remain static at best or bear the brunt of further reductions.
This leads to the second question: how to respond to these cuts? It is in the industry’s best interest to more aggressively pursue regulatory and legislative changes to fundamentally change how public housing is funding and administered. There are efforts to reduce the administrative and regulatory burden of small agencies (those with less than 500 units) being pursued by the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA) and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO). They are joined by the Council of Large Public Housing Agencies (CLPHA) to expand the Moving-to-work program which allows housing authorities to combine their funding allocation and dispense the resources in a way which meets local need. These groups are also in discussion with HUD to identify regulatory and administrative changes to ease the burden on local agencies.
All of these efforts are important but they will only succeed if advocates for these program confront the political and economic reality – cuts combined with spending freezes means there must be out-of-the-box thinking if these programs are going to continue to provide a service to those in need.
Multigenerational Housing Increasing
The American Association of Retired People (AARP) Public Policy Institute recently released a report which showed an increase in the number of multigenerational households residing in the United States. The number increased from 6.2 million in 2008 to 7.1 million in 2010. There were 5 million multigenerational households in 2000.
The report cites an analysis by the Pew Research Center which states that one in five adults between the ages of 25 to 34 live in multigenerational households. Hispanics, African-Americans and Asians are more likely to live in multigenerational households than whites.
Interesting Read
Medicare fight exposes House GOP’s internal rifts
By David Rogers
Politico
Lawmaker Proposes Federal Hiring Freeze
By Emily Long
GovExec.com
Waiting Game
By Charlie Cook
National Journal
The Cook Report: Taking On Obama
By Charlie Cook
National Journal
