Subsidizing is not the same as subsidence, even though people may use the words interchangeably

This is a long one…you might want to get some popcorn and take a leak. This is my bumbling response to The Ambassador who brought up a very valid point about people who complain about “substandard housing” but offer no solutions. Here’s my analysis, mixed with some opinion and common sense:

The idea of "substandard housing" is broad. I would define a “substandard housing” situation as one that does not meet at least two of the following criteria: economically affordable (meaning, by the government definition, ~30-40% of yearly income), made from materials that are not toxic (asbestos, lead, etc.), not ostracized to the corners of cities and removed from the low-wage jobs the tenants would have, not located in areas adjacent to airports, rail yards, or other areas that these things are usually built in, are not socially stigmatized by people that don’t know any better claiming they are havens of drug abuse or domestic violence, and built according to basic safety codes.

I'm in full agreement with The Ambassador on removing slum lords and their ilk. But we can go further without the government running the housing market. We can leave housing a market commodity but still have substantial improvement. I don't think the government should be running the housing or even building the housing. But...they are already providing housing for middle class and rich Americans (via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, VA loans, etc...). Why can't they provide money for low-income housing and home-ownership as well?

Just so you know: I'm not an advocate of government solutions. Government is a poor manager of money, efficiency, and time. And I will give no slack to people that are lazy, job the system, or do stupid things and then expect to be bailed out by government so they can then keep doing the same thing. People like that don’t deserve to get benefits because they never put into the pot. But, the majority of people, even the desperately poor, are hard-working and would rather work and be productive than be given hand outs.

Part of the government’s job is to provide funds for things that are 1) not affordable by a single entity (such as the military, space programs, etc.) and 2) are unlikely to be built by private parties because other people will get free use of them (roads, bridges, etc.). This is done by levying taxes on everyone. That way, everyone pays for them and everyone has a stake in them. (I admit this is an idealized situation, but these behaviors are included in many definitions of government).

In no particular order, the more obvious things to improve the situation are:

1) Direct federal funds earmarked ONLY for building affordable housing. By affordable, I mean small apartments for people making poverty level or lower wages that are consistent with my definition of what constitutes “standard housing” above. My definition of the poverty level is, admittedly, not the same as the government’s since the formula is fundamentally flawed. But that's a different story. These buildings would be run as businesses but with the possibility of subsidies during lean periods. If farmers, big oil, airlines, and banks can get subsidies, why not entrepreneurs interested in running apartment complexes for low-income people?

2) Enforce the laws we have now. This includes fair housing laws and basic building codes and safety standards. New laws are pointless unless the ones we have now are given a chance to work.

3) Be more equitable in services coverage. Poor areas tend to have fewer police stations, fire fighters, and emergency health services. This would make many areas that are now considered “substandard” into areas that are not. It’s not always the physical housing. Sometimes it’s just the condition of the neighborhood.

4) Stop spending money on political capital and start working on domestic human capital. Education is key. Good schools and good teachers would go a long way. Educated people are less likely to live in these areas or end up there as a result of low-wage jobs or poor “life choices” in the parlance of our times.

A large part of the problem is related to the more insidious and pervasive things. These also have to change:

1) Racism, ageism, sexism, and all other –isms related to discrimination. These things keep poor people huddled together, racially segregated, and reinforce the social settings that create substandard areas in the first place.

2) Social ostracism of people that live in poverty as well as the jobs they have (house workers, sales clerks, waitresses, etc.). These are not stupid people. They’re not lazy, selfish, or criminals. They are people that didn’t have opportunities we take for granted and often get caught in vicious economic, political, and social battles that are out of their control. These jobs also take a strong physical and mental toll on workers that is not recognized by the public at large.

3) We have to remove greed. CEO’s make millions, secretaries minimum wage. By taking a few less millions and raising the pay of secretaries to more than $7.75 an hour, companies would increase their public image, decrease turnover and absenteeism, and improve the lives of millions. In turn, the workers could afford to move out of decrepit housing and leave them empty to be bulldozed and turned into something more useful.

There’s a pattern above. Most of the solutions to “substandard housing” are not directly related to the physical abode. Most of them are social problems that reinforce bad conditions. We could build (monetarily) “affordable” houses until we’re blue in the face, but if people can’t afford houses because they’re buying food or medical care, or are constantly moving to different jobs, the issue is moot. I see the key factor being our mentality. This has to become a priority. Otherwise, we will spend time, money, and effort on other things. We have to be willing, as citizens, to help fellow citizens. We have to sacrifice a very small amount (relative to our total possessions) to provide much larger benefits to others. This idea of “win-loss” is part of the reason I don’t think we’ll ever solve this problem. People don’t want to help others if they think they will lose something (e.g. money by paying taxes). In the end, if you cut your standard of living by even 1%, you have the potential to increase someone else’s by many multiples of that. Personally, the fact that we are the richest nation in the world and still have tens of millions of citizens who live 4-5 people in a single room and STILL struggle to pay the rent is an outrage.

These are not easy problems to solve. Throwing money at cities and forcing them to build housing has been tried. The preferred solution has mostly been to ignore the problem. Neither has worked. My suggestions are meant to focus on the roots of WHY people are in situations that lead to substandard housing. We need to apply our money strategically. But mostly, we need to make this a community effort. We’re so far behind Europe when it comes to these types of things it makes my skin crawl. This country has done amazing things under pressure and has come together to accomplish them (WWII anyone?). Instead of being an issue of sacrifice, why don’t we make it a noble cause and a reason for American’s to actually be proud of America.

Little voting foo foo hopping through the voting booths

How lame is your party and its platform if you have to go across the aisle and vote for the person you think is easiest to beat from the opposition? To me, all that makes you is 1) a douchebag, 2) insecure in your own beliefs, 3) more interested in winning than in issues and their solutions, 4) not interested in the American ideal of a fair election, and 5) a douchebag.

This article is pretty slanted against Republicans, but the idea goes both ways. The whole point of the primary is for each party to choose who will represent them in the national election and build the platform they will run on. Instead of busying yourself voting for Hillary because you think she’s more beatable than Obama or because you’d rather see her win in November if a Democrat wins, why don’t you take the time to examine your arguments and get ready to tell the voters why we should think the same way. I’ll summarize a few of them here:

1) We are at the beginning of a recession and your current poster boy won’t admit it. The fool doesn’t even know what the price of gas is. You might want to think about how you’ll get the economy moving. And no, lowering taxes is not an option. You can’t spend billions a day on oil, wars, and defense without bringing in an equal amount in revenue.
2) America’s image both abroad and at home is sinking lower than Eliot Spitzer’s hooker. What plan do you have to improve the situation without reverting to “China and Korea are worse than us” rhetoric?
3) Our bridges, roads, water treatment plants, power plants, weather satellites, and other infrastructure are rapidly deteriorating. You might want to decide how to get it back in working order.
4) There are millions of children, minorities, and women living in substandard housing, with substandard schools, and no end to their poverty in sight. Take a minute to figure out what should be done to help them.
5) You’re all about fighting “terrorists”, yet we are pouring resources into Iraq (which study after study has shown led to an INCREASE in terrorist activity) instead of attacking the roots of terrorism- poverty, unemployment, political and religious extremism, etc. How will you defend this to the public?

Don’t think I’m letting the Democrats off either. They do the same shit and it’s just as shameful and retarded. But Democratic aisle jumping appears to be a non-issue in this election since McCain has it wrapped up tighter than a jimmy hat. So I’m not going to hammer it in. Plus, I haven’t heard any of the left-wing Laura Ingrahams spouting this non-sense out loud yet. The Dems have their own issues seeing as they can’t even agree on how to follow their own party’s delegate nomination rules in Florida and Michigan. Anyone that crosses party lines to influence the other party’s nomination is a person that doesn’t trust their party to win on its merits. And that doesn’t say much about you or your party.

Lastly, in case you were wondering, no- this is not the same as vote swapping. We’ll deal with that on The Politicircus.

Republican wet dream

I didn't realize it had been so long since I put something up. Hopefully someone is still checking in on this. Today, let's talk Ann Coulter. This is the woman all of these homophobic, anti-porn, anti-abortion white men go home and beat off to. She's made a career out of wearing little black cocktail dresses, stroking (haha...stroking) the egos of the right, and ruffling feathers on the left. And that's why she's possibly the greatest person in America right now.

Ann Coulter represents everything the rest of us think we stand for when we say we believe in free speech. She's not afraid to say anything and she has no shame. She's apparently the only one willing to even question some of the motives of the 9/11 survivor families. I'm not agreeing with her exactly. She lumps a very diverse group of people under one banner. And she could have been far more tactful. But it's something we were all thinking. She just had the balls to say it.

The next time you hear a democratic politician say they believe in free speech, ask them if that includes Ann Coulter. You won't get a straight yes. You'll get a lot of bullshit about how she's gone too far and doesn't love America. Whether you agree with her or not, you have to defend her right to say it. Otherwise, maybe a I question how much you love America. The best part of the whole situation is that she's busy defending a group of people that are working as hard as they can to take free speech away from her. And if you don't believe that, just take a look at who is responsible for the steep increase in censorship of TV, military blogging, and FOIA requests over the past five years.

Ann is in the entertainment business. She's a stripper dazzling the political right with anti-liberal speech instead of her tits. Although to be fair, she's not working real hard to keep those out of the spotlight either. She's no different than Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern, or Sean Hannity. Her job is to sell books and airtime. No one in their right mind takes her seriously. She's not looking to deliver facts or thoughtful commentary. There is no analysis involved in her arguments. She's telling half of the people what they want to hear about the other half. She's intentionally pushing buttons to get a rise out of people and keep her face in the news. And if you really hang on her every word as if they in any way reflect reality, you're just as gullible as she's hoping you are.

Fresh fish!

I’ve been thinking about doing a piece on some of the many reasons the U.S. prison system is messed up, but it appears that someone beat me to it. 1 out of 100 people in this country is in prison. What the fuck? I don’t believe for one second that Americans are more prone to crime than other people. We’re the richest nation on Earth. Why are we filling up our prisons instead of helping these people?

For starters, if you think about it, the idea of prison is kind of stupid. Essentially, you take all of the worst aspects of society- hard core drug use, violence, low self-esteem, poverty, racism, and straight-up ignorance- and put all those into one central location. Many prisoners are people that are already marginalized by society. Now we send them to a place where they can have all those ideas reinforced by being around other people that think and act the same way. And we wonder why prison doesn’t seem to work.

In this country we like to talk about how we believe in rehabilitating criminals. This is utter garbage. Rehabilitation involves intensive care including education, psychological treatment, counseling, personal attention, good role models, and the opportunity to put those treatments into action. The system, as designed and run now, does none of those things. Drug use is rampant in prisons. Guards are combative, fearful, and don’t have time to act like role models. Plus they have guns. Not exactly a friendly relationship. There is no psychological treatment or counseling. Education programs are under-funded or non-existent. In short, there is no rehabilitation. To top it all off, criminals are branded for life when they leave. They don’t get to start over. What they did will follow them until they die. And out in the rest of the world, we’re so paranoid of former inmates that they rarely get a chance to fit back into society. And we wonder why prison doesn’t seem to work.

I’m not saying that prison is all bad. There is a need to keep violent people away from the general public. But we’ve got people locked away for bullshit reasons. Rapists, murderers, multiple-offenders- these are the people that belong in prison. Not people getting 5-10 for drug possession. If we had fewer people in prison, the ones that are there might get the attention and treatment they need and deserve. I know you can’t rehabilitate everyone. But at least you could make an honest effort. More importantly, the “rehabilitation” should begin outside, before prison is even a possibility. Reducing poverty and racism, increasing education and employment opportunities, and getting young kids the help they need before they turn to gangs, guns, and crime would do far more good than waiting until they are already headed down that path.

Prisons would work better if they actually treated criminals equally. The ethnic and racial make-up of prisons does not match the overall population. More minorities end up in prison, even for the same crimes committed by whites. Embezzlement, insider-trading, and other white-collar crimes are treated less harshly and receive less prison time than crimes that are perceived as “minority” driven or more blue-collar - robbery, assault, or battery. You can’t tell me without some decent proof that if 70-aught percent of America is white, we shouldn’t see at least a similar percentage in prisons. I can understand minorities making up a slightly larger proportion in prison because they are more likely to be poor, uneducated, and have fewer opportunities to do something that earns them a decent wage. But when prisons show 80% minority populations, that points to something fucked up about the system that put them there. And we wonder why prison doesn’t work.

In the end, it all comes down to priorities. We have money to fritter on a trillion dollar witch-hunt for “terrorists”, we have money to build arsenals and nukes, we have money to buy statues of dead Americans and useless libraries for every president, but magically have no money to pay for schools, community programs, youth centers, or job training. We’ve got our priorities backward. We’re spending money to protect a perceived “way of life” when we should be spending money to increase our human capital and help our own people with tangible things like a livable income. We have to bring our protection of “America” (whatever that really means) in line with the realities of its citizens. Otherwise, we will continue to be the most incarcerated group of people on the planet. And that doesn’t appear to jive with either freedom or democracy.