March 26, 2005, Affordable Housing. For the Living.
And so, I guess, the cheering on the Upper West Side (and presumably in its companion locales like Berkeley, San Francisco, maybe Hollywood, places like that) is beginning to simmer to a joyful roar, as the combination of heel-digging by Caveman Judge Greer (liberals should know that their darling jurist is, by predilection, what would usually be considered a religious conservative, though his pastor kind of asked him to leave his church "because it would be better that way") yielding to the wishes of... another caveman whose new paramour and mother of his two children wished to have his former (and technically current) wife in the ground, one Terri Schiavo's rather unpleasant existence on our Earthly plain will soon come to an unpleasant end.
Congratulations to you all. After the bankruptcy sell-out and the ANWR collapse, I was more or less convinced that Democrats were effectively no better than Republicans: both parties were just about preserving the interests of the powerful (it's just that the Republicans were honest about it.)
After the Schiavo fiasco, especially given the rather adverse polling (the President may have lost 4 or 5 points in his approval ratings, for example), I was amazed to see that it was Republicans who might try something politically crazy regardless of the political consequences because (rightly or wrongly) they just thought it was RIGHT.
Damn. That was the party I thought I was a member of. I guess I was wrong. My party is about selfishness and the interests of the powerful, (just like theirs) but it's also about expedience and political correctness. As espoused by the one-issue nature of our party (that being "abortion", and of late, "very, very late term abortion"). Well, I'll continue my apostasy with another issue theoretically near and dear to Democrats (LOL), affordable housing. Perhaps someone will manage to tie this into abortion, so that the party writ large might be interested in it.
Once again, my proposal is relatively easy, and is called "the free market". Most of my remaining readers (I appreciate the six of you staying!) will recognize my approach to taxation designed to (get this!) collect revenue for the government. Accordingly, you already know that I would have eliminated mortgage-interest deduction (and indeed, all deductions) in exchange for lowered general tax rates. Further, the government running closer to balanced budgets would put less upward pressure on interest rates, or more to the point, less volatility in interest rates. Interest rate fluctuations, of course, are a key component of the movement in housing prices.
Locally, places like New York City have mandated rent controls and stabilizations. I would enact a federal law forcing all states and localities to phase all such forms of controls out over a ten year period, and (to avoid constitutional problems) use the spending clause": under pain of losing ALL federal housing funds. The fact is, these market distortions result in gross inequities, and, because they are impossible to un-do by local politics, probably need federal action. This move would, singlehandedly, solve most (if not ALL) problems associated with unaffordable rental housing in urban areas.
Another major problem concerns the insane auctions going on for housing in "good school districts". This, frankly, is a harder problem, because it involves the perverse way in which we deliver public education, and goes way, way beyond housing, so this issue will be left for a later (if ever!) post.
With respect to the po' folk who need somewhere to live, with the above-referenced market distortions removed, I suspect a fair number of affordable housing units would open up. As necessary, we can means-test for specifiic subsidies to reside in private housing for those who still require it, preferably on a state and local level for administrative purposes (though, see above, the Feds can still contribute to this).
And that's it. By removing the various perverse market distortions I've out-lined above, back-stopped by direct subsidies as needed, we can deliver far more affordable housing to far more people at far lower cost. Perhaps if we tie the same market mechanisms to delivery of abortions services, Democrats might become interested enough in the issue to do something about it. There are enough market-based goodies (like elimination of rent controls) to make Republicans interested in it.
I'm dreaming again. Sorry about that.
Comments
Hey, I just whacked the guy that created the Beverly Hillbillies. What are you gonna do about that, Jethro?
Judge Turn 'em Loose Bruce Wright? Good liberal, yes I know, but I had to let him go. I've got Judge In Your Ear Greer, who else do I need? Any old relatives getting on your nerves? Taking up that spare bedroom? Call me at 1-800-DIE-SUKA. It's like taking candy from a baby (or food from a wife).
Posted by Mickey Blue Eyes Schiavo at March 26, 2005 6:07 PM
If there's a cabaret heaven, you know they got a hell of a band. Me.
Hey, I'm not forgotten already? Am I?
Posted by Bobby Short, Ret. at March 26, 2005 6:51 PM
Rent control mostly sucks, but local governments have infinite other ways to screw up their local housing markets and not have affordable housing built (and those two things are not necessarily one and the same)
Posted by Atrios at March 27, 2005 5:15 PM
You know, the rhetorical assertion that Fred Derf and Joe Blow are equally bullies but Fred is somehow superior because he's "honest about it" isn't just bad rhetoric, it's also wrong on the facts.
"Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue," La Rochefoucauld observed. And in actual life, the bully who feels the need to pay that tribute is often easier to push into acts of *actual virtue* than the bully who doesn't care at all.
Intellectuals tend to be big on, well, intellectual consistency. As a result, they tend to think hypocrisy is a much bigger deal than it actually is, relative to other sins such as the ones that entail actual violence, oppression, robbery, etc. While you're congratulating yourself on your brave departures from liberal orthodoxy, you might want to think about this particular area, in which you appear to be as much of a perfect stereotype as the "Upper West Side" types you generally enjoy apostrophizing.
Posted by Patrick Nielsen Hayden at March 28, 2005 1:39 PM
My God, TD, I think we actually agree on something. I'd be fine with whatever decision the Schindler's make for their daughter. The decisions on her care shouldn't be made by a disaffected husband who has started another family and who has possible pecuniary motives as well. Sheesh. Her parents and siblings are all the family she has left. The courts should let them decide the matter safe in the knowledged that they clearly love their daughter. (Remember, it's not exactly clear what Terri's wishes were.) The more I read about the husband, the more I think this case stinks.
By the way, it's interesting how the Schiavo case transforms party lines. I know lots of conservatives who are fine with Judge Greer's decision and then I see famous liberals like Ralph Nader and Lanny Davis on tv siding with the Christian Right on this one. Strange.
Posted by Lawrence at March 28, 2005 3:18 PM
Dude, we get the point: you disagree with the Dems RE: TS.
And there's not a damned thing wrong with it, you are entitled to your own opinion.
One would hope however, that you could 1. State your opposition without regurgitating standard wingnut talking points and 2. Not be such a damned drama queen about it.
Just sayin' is all. You're acting like this is some sort of prelude to a wrasslin face/heel turn.
Posted by SuperTroy at March 29, 2005 12:40 AM