2:59 PM
Julio Barreto
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s decision to abruptly leave the deficit reduction talks throws another wrench into bipartisan efforts to reach a compromise on reducing federal spending. Republicans hard line on any tax increases or elimination of tax loopholes will make it extremely difficult to reach an agreement before the deadline to raise the nation’s debt limit.
If the Republicans are successful, domestic programs, including affordable housing programs are at risk of deep reductions over the next several years. Talks seemed to be progressing to the point where budget parameters for the next few years were coming into sharper focus. However, Cantor’s action and the Republican’s insistence on receiving a pledge from the president pretty much ensures an agreement will not be reached by the deadline.
The fact that some Members of Congress have expressed an interest in passing a temporary extension is an indication both parties realize while there is some progress being made, and that more time is needed. As budget pressures build, don’t be surprised if fewer groups express a reasonable position on deficit reduction like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). AARP stated they would accept reductions in benefits for future retirees until they received push back from Democrats and others.
There simply are too many competing and powerful interests groups yielding too much influence on negotiators. The pressure is squarely on the president. He is feeling the heat from Republicans and Democrats to submit a deficit reduction plan as a condition to having the ceiling raised. He needs to take the lead but not appear to be to pressure from Republic ans.
Republicans are operating from a position of strength For affordable housing programs, this is not a good sign for a number of reasons:
First, federal affordable housing programs have broad but shallow support in Congress and very little support among the general public. Public housing and the Section 8 voucher programs are not popular in local communities. In this political and economic environment, unpopular government programs will be the first targets of budget hawks. Even within the affordable housing community, it will be hard for broad coalitions to stick together when decisions are made about cutting programmatic budgets. At some point, self-interest will take over and the least popular programs will suffer.
Second, any efforts to spruce up the housing market will be targeted to homeownership. While it is becoming harder to own a home with tightening purchasing requirements, homeownership is still a strong indicator of economic progress. If the economy falters, housing production falters, if housing production falters fewer jobs and less upward mobility. In the eyes of too many important people, homeownership is more important to the overall economy than rental housing. When decisions are made about funding housing initiatives, homeownership initiatives will receive priority.
Third, the traditional message which said programs such as the Public Housing Capital Fund, HOME or CDBG are job creators, while technically correct, does not carry the same weight as it did in the past. Local governments are so overwhelmed job creation is only one concern. Cities and counties are getting squeezed top to bottom. From the top they are losing federal funds to address specific concerns. The economy has had negative consequences on families which means local politicians risk losing elections if they raise local taxes. There is not enough revenue to preserve existing jobs, create new ones and meet an array of fiscal obligations. At the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) meeting in Baltimore, the mayors called for an end to the wars and a redistribution of those resources to local governments. It is not going to happen. Local governments will be squeezed further and in most communities public housing will suffer the most.
The message needs to change dramatically. In 1995, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) did, in fact, change the discussion on affordable housing in a dramatic way. The organization called for block granting housing programs and eliminating the Brooke Amendment. NAHRO’s bold step jolted the affordable housing community. By taking the position and calling for the restructuring of housing programs, the decision broadened NAHRO’s political support across both sides of the aisle while forcing legislators, administrators and advocates to rethink how these programs are structured and administered.
NAHRO’s proposals were controversial but the subsequent discussion led to the passage of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration used its regulatory powers to neuter some of the flexibility provided housing administrators that was in the legislation. Nevertheless, NAHRO’s action is an example of the kind of initiative needed to reshape debate on public housing and do so in a constructive way.
Affordable housing groups need to hire a public relations firm that has the pulse on what Americans will support. Housing programs are slow, expensive and in no-win situations. If the property looks too nice, citizens feel it is a waste of taxpayer dollars on “undeserving” families. If it is not properly maintained, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The message must be about people not places. Many years ago NAHRO had ads in its magazine which highlighted the people served in public housing. A variation of that message needs to be the foundation of advocacy efforts.
Without a change in message, affordable housing is facing deep cuts from which some programs may never recover. Look at the groups screaming the loudest: farmer subsidy supporters, defense hawks, protectors of food and children nutritional and food programs. Housing groups cannot compete with them without a compelling argument which puts them, at minimum, at the table when decisions are made.
Interesting Read
Debt talks: Democrat Kent Conrad, Senate budget chair, says $2 trillion not enough
By Lori Montgomery and Rosalind S. Helderman
The Washington Post
Deficit talks in danger as Eric Cantor bails
By David Rogers
Politico
GOP's bold gamble on deficit talks
By David Rogers
Politico
Can Boehner play dealmaker on debt talks?
By Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan
Politico
Obama’s dilemma on the debt-limit talks
The Washington Post
By Michael Gerson
Democrats fret over White House dealmaking
By Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan
Politico
CBO: Debt could grow to double GDP
By David Rogers
Politico
AARP expects Social Security benefit cuts
By Jeanne Sahad
CNN Money
AARP Move on Social Security Could Help Avoid a Train Wreck
By David Gergen
CNN
Conservatives’ spending pledge
By Emily Miller
The Washington Times
Housing and Community Development
White House’s Daley seeks balance in outreach meeting with manufacturers
By Peter Wallsten and and Jia Lynn Yang
The Washington Post
The Indiana Exception? Yes, but...
By Michael Powell and Monica Davey
The New York Times
Eclipsed
Why the white working class is the most alienated and pessimistic group in American society.
by Ronald Brownstein
The National Journal
If the Republicans are successful, domestic programs, including affordable housing programs are at risk of deep reductions over the next several years. Talks seemed to be progressing to the point where budget parameters for the next few years were coming into sharper focus. However, Cantor’s action and the Republican’s insistence on receiving a pledge from the president pretty much ensures an agreement will not be reached by the deadline.
The fact that some Members of Congress have expressed an interest in passing a temporary extension is an indication both parties realize while there is some progress being made, and that more time is needed. As budget pressures build, don’t be surprised if fewer groups express a reasonable position on deficit reduction like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). AARP stated they would accept reductions in benefits for future retirees until they received push back from Democrats and others.
There simply are too many competing and powerful interests groups yielding too much influence on negotiators. The pressure is squarely on the president. He is feeling the heat from Republicans and Democrats to submit a deficit reduction plan as a condition to having the ceiling raised. He needs to take the lead but not appear to be to pressure from Republic ans.
Republicans are operating from a position of strength For affordable housing programs, this is not a good sign for a number of reasons:
First, federal affordable housing programs have broad but shallow support in Congress and very little support among the general public. Public housing and the Section 8 voucher programs are not popular in local communities. In this political and economic environment, unpopular government programs will be the first targets of budget hawks. Even within the affordable housing community, it will be hard for broad coalitions to stick together when decisions are made about cutting programmatic budgets. At some point, self-interest will take over and the least popular programs will suffer.
Second, any efforts to spruce up the housing market will be targeted to homeownership. While it is becoming harder to own a home with tightening purchasing requirements, homeownership is still a strong indicator of economic progress. If the economy falters, housing production falters, if housing production falters fewer jobs and less upward mobility. In the eyes of too many important people, homeownership is more important to the overall economy than rental housing. When decisions are made about funding housing initiatives, homeownership initiatives will receive priority.
Third, the traditional message which said programs such as the Public Housing Capital Fund, HOME or CDBG are job creators, while technically correct, does not carry the same weight as it did in the past. Local governments are so overwhelmed job creation is only one concern. Cities and counties are getting squeezed top to bottom. From the top they are losing federal funds to address specific concerns. The economy has had negative consequences on families which means local politicians risk losing elections if they raise local taxes. There is not enough revenue to preserve existing jobs, create new ones and meet an array of fiscal obligations. At the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) meeting in Baltimore, the mayors called for an end to the wars and a redistribution of those resources to local governments. It is not going to happen. Local governments will be squeezed further and in most communities public housing will suffer the most.
The message needs to change dramatically. In 1995, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) did, in fact, change the discussion on affordable housing in a dramatic way. The organization called for block granting housing programs and eliminating the Brooke Amendment. NAHRO’s bold step jolted the affordable housing community. By taking the position and calling for the restructuring of housing programs, the decision broadened NAHRO’s political support across both sides of the aisle while forcing legislators, administrators and advocates to rethink how these programs are structured and administered.
NAHRO’s proposals were controversial but the subsequent discussion led to the passage of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration used its regulatory powers to neuter some of the flexibility provided housing administrators that was in the legislation. Nevertheless, NAHRO’s action is an example of the kind of initiative needed to reshape debate on public housing and do so in a constructive way.
Affordable housing groups need to hire a public relations firm that has the pulse on what Americans will support. Housing programs are slow, expensive and in no-win situations. If the property looks too nice, citizens feel it is a waste of taxpayer dollars on “undeserving” families. If it is not properly maintained, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The message must be about people not places. Many years ago NAHRO had ads in its magazine which highlighted the people served in public housing. A variation of that message needs to be the foundation of advocacy efforts.
Without a change in message, affordable housing is facing deep cuts from which some programs may never recover. Look at the groups screaming the loudest: farmer subsidy supporters, defense hawks, protectors of food and children nutritional and food programs. Housing groups cannot compete with them without a compelling argument which puts them, at minimum, at the table when decisions are made.
Interesting Read
Debt talks: Democrat Kent Conrad, Senate budget chair, says $2 trillion not enough
By Lori Montgomery and Rosalind S. Helderman
The Washington Post
Deficit talks in danger as Eric Cantor bails
By David Rogers
Politico
GOP's bold gamble on deficit talks
By David Rogers
Politico
Can Boehner play dealmaker on debt talks?
By Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan
Politico
Obama’s dilemma on the debt-limit talks
The Washington Post
By Michael Gerson
Democrats fret over White House dealmaking
By Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan
Politico
CBO: Debt could grow to double GDP
By David Rogers
Politico
AARP expects Social Security benefit cuts
By Jeanne Sahad
CNN Money
AARP Move on Social Security Could Help Avoid a Train Wreck
By David Gergen
CNN
Conservatives’ spending pledge
By Emily Miller
The Washington Times
Housing and Community Development
White House’s Daley seeks balance in outreach meeting with manufacturers
By Peter Wallsten and and Jia Lynn Yang
The Washington Post
The Indiana Exception? Yes, but...
By Michael Powell and Monica Davey
The New York Times
Eclipsed
Why the white working class is the most alienated and pessimistic group in American society.
by Ronald Brownstein
The National Journal
Posted in: 
