Hands of the People

As the 2024 Presidential election is coming near, something is always brought up. The popular vote and the electoral college. The United States is the only democracy in the world where a presidential candidate can win the popular votes and still lose the election. Because of the Electoral College, this has happened five times in the United States history. The most noticeable and recent was in 2016, when Hillary Clinton got more popular votes than Donald Trump but lost in the Electoral College.

But why did the founding fathers make the electoral college? The founding fathers were deciding how to choose the president for the first time in the world’s history, they were setting a precedent. There were three main reasons why they did not want to have a popular vote. Mainly, they did not trust people in the 18th century to be informed enough to make educated decisions. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” would steer the country astray. And lastly, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.

However, the electoral college also has racist origins. When deciding how many electors to assign to each state, the question of whether the count of enslaved persons should be included as a portion of the count of a state’s total population confounded the authors. in 1787, around 80% of Southerners were enslaved Black people who could not vote, however, Southerners wanted more representatives, and came up with the "three-fifths compromise" where three-fifths of the enslaved Black Population would be counted to allocating representatives and electors and federal taxes. The compromise ensured that Souther States would ratify the

 constitution and gave Virginia, home to more that 200,000 slaves, a quarter of the total electoral votes required to win the president. For 32 of the United States first 36 years, a slave-holding Virginian occupied the White House.

The Electoral College was for a country that has slavery and masses of uneducated voters who would elect demagogues and dictators who would destroy the nation. Mostly, the Founding Fathers’ assumptions proved untrue. When the electoral college was created in 1787, there were no political parties, however today most electors have to vote for their party’s candidate. It was also assumed that each elector’s vote would be counted, however, all but two states passed laws to give all of their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state's popular cote count, and there is no semblance of elector independence. The founding fathers also assumed that most elections would not be decided by the people or the electors, but by the House of Representatives. After George Washington's unanimous election, they believed future elections would feature a large amount of candidates who would divide the electoral pie in smaller pieces, giving Congress a chance to pick the winner, however when political parties formed, the number of candidate shrank. Only two elections have been decided by the House, and the most recent one was in 1824.

When the electoral college was first formed in the United States other countries followed as well. In the Americas, Colombia adopted an electoral college in 1821, Chile adopted one in 1828, Argentina in 1853. In Europe, Finland adopted an electoral college in 1925, and France in 1958. However, over time, these countries changed their minds. All of them abandoned their electoral colleges and switched to directly electing their presidents by popular vote. Colombia switched in 1910, Chile in 1925, France in 1965, Finland in 1994, and Argentina in 1995. The United States is the only democratic country with an electoral college.

Many people argue that the electoral college gives power to smaller states and ensures that that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the President of the United States.

However, I have to disagree because, if anything, it allows swing states to decide instead of the people. In a democracy, the people should have the power to decide who is in or out of the office, it should be in hands of the people. The President should be a representative of and by the people.

Eight years ago I wrote something about the Electoral College.  We have the same opinion about it. 

A student speaks in favor of SNAP benefits

For this reflection paper, I would like to write about Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). From what I can recall, SNAP is a program that gives temporary money to households and individuals for food. Individuals with dependents and/or disabilities get longer periods of time for them to use SNAP. If people do not have dependents or a disability, they have to be working to be considered for SNAP benefits. This program is regulated in the Food Bill, and executed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

I think that more money should be given to this program as it is greatly essential for those trying to get out of poverty, meaning that each household/individual would get more SNAP money each month. People receiving these benefits often do not have enough money to feed themselves or their families by the end of the month, even if they try to budget the benefits.

Especially now with the inflation on food in the country. I believe that the program did increase its budget because of inflation, but that still kept the people in the program struggling for 3 meals a day.

I am glad that this program allows struggling people to receive quality foods as well, such as from farmer’s markets and whole foods markets. However, the amount of these locations that accept EBT cards are limited. I wish that more or all of these locations would be encouraged to accept SNAP. Owners of these shops would still be paid for their products, and these families would get the quality food that they required to improve their lives. Similarly, not all locally and/or family owned restaurants/markets accept SNAP either, and if the Food Bill had more easy programming for these restaurants and shops to transition into also accepting EBT, that would benefit the local economies and the people overall.

I know many individuals who are using SNAP or who have used SNAP in the past to meet their dietary needs. They often had to go through hoops to receive their EBT cards and the benefits that they needed as some of them had difficulty proving their disability. I believe that this process humiliates those that desperately need this assistance. I understand that those working behind the scenes and with the loads of paperwork are likely to be overburdened and

behind on the processes behind SNAP. So I suggest a more streamlined process for the SNAP application should be created. This way, those working behind the scenes have less loads of work to take on, and it would be easier for the people who require SNAP to obtain the assistance they need.

The numbers of households and persons benefiting from SNAP benefits had been relatively consistent (around 10 million households and 20-25 million persons between 1980 and 2008) during most of my life, but the Great Recession sent the number of households using SNAP up to over 20 million, and the number of persons benefiting from SNAP has been above 40 million. SNAP was a program that always ha da cost around $30 to $50 billion, but then during the Great Recession the SNAP program went up to about $100 billion for a few years, and it went up to nearly $120 billion during the COVID recession in 2020-21.  In FY 2022, 41.2 million persons in 21.6 million households were using SNAP each month. The most recent information I could find (for August 2024) showed 42.2 million persons in 22.5 million households receiving benefits worth $8.053 billion ($96.6 billion per year). Average benefits were $211.52 per person in 2023.  Over a third (37%) of those receiving SNAP receive the minimum benefit, 26% of all SNAP recipient households have earned income, and among SNAP-receiving households with children, 50% have earned income (Key Statistics, 2024).  Generally, most households earning less than 130% of the poverty threshold qualify for SNAP benefits. The exception are the non-disabled adults without children, who can receive only three months of SNAP benefits, but if they are in job training or working at least 20 hours per week, they can continue receiving SNAP benefits. 

For decades, people had pointed out that SNAP benefits were set at a low level that would not cover actual food expenses.  The food budget used to set maximum SNAP benefits was outdated. However, starting in 2021, benefit levels were increased to match more accurately the actual costs of eating nutritious food.  As a result, if you look at the costs of the program, they have dramatically increased in the past couple years, and will likely remain about $100 billion per year (after including the cost of administering the program).

One thing that interests me is how real (inflation-adjusted) incomes for persons at the 10th, 20th, and 30th percentile have gone up (according to the 2023 income report from the Census Bureau that came out in September of of 2024). Unemployment is low, and incomes are rising faster than inflation even for low-income earning households, and yet, the percentage of the population receiving SNAP (at 130% of poverty or lower) is remaining fairly steady, or even slightly increasing. This suggests to me that much of the improvement in this “good economy” for low-income households has meant going from terrible low-paying jobs to bad low-paying jobs, or from no jobs to bad low-paying jobs (even a bad low-paying job is an improvement over no job in terms of income).  Ideally, a booming economy would mean that persons who work full-time and still don’t earn enough to get over 130% of poverty (still qualify for SNAP) would become rare. 

Let’s think about what the family close to that 130%-of-poverty margin might experience. Imagine a family with two young children and one adult staying home to care for the children while the other adult works full-time in one job, 37.5 paid-hours per week with 9 unpaid holidays and 10 paid days off each year (sick leave and vacation), so essentially 240 work days each year and 1,800 hours worked each year.  Families with 4 persons have a poverty threshold of $31,200, and 130% of that is $40,560, which is what about what a person earns working for $22.50 for 1,800 hours per year (they would earn $40,500).  With two children and an income of $40,500, the family would have $4,000 in refundable tax credits for the children, and an EITC of $3,992. Thus, after payroll withholding for Social Security and Medicare and the benefits of EITC and Child Tax Credits, the income before state and federal income taxes would be $45,394, and the household (in Illinois) would probably qualify for about $400 extra SNAP money for help with groceries (assuming about $1,200 for rent and no significant assets over $5,000 in value).  For Federal income taxes, there would be something like a $32K standard deduction, leaving $4,500 of taxable income to pay 10% (so, total tax bill is about $450, and the EITC would actually only get a payback of $3544, approximately). If they lived in Illinois, they would have about $360 in state income tax, but the state of Illinois earned income tax credit would erase most of that, leaving them with possibly $160 in state income taxes to pay.  

So, after taxes and EITC and Child Tax Credits and Social Security and Medicare withholding, we’re looking at $3,732 earned income and $400 per month in SNAP benefits, and if the children were in school, they would qualify for free lunches (also, like SNAP, a 130% of poverty threshold).  I’ve already said their rent is $1,200, so they have $2532 each month for other expenses, and as their income is under 133% of poverty, they would be covered by Medicaid (if they lived in Illinois or any of the other states that has expanded Medicaid up to 133% of poverty). Insurance on two cars: $120, maintenance and repairs and gas for two cars over a year would average about $160 per month. Utilities in their apartment might average $200 per month (more in winter and summer, less in late spring and early autumn), and their internet service, cell phone service, and cost of their phones might run about $130 per month. Let’s guess one car is paid for, and the other car has a loan that they are paying off with $400 per month payments.  Let’s say also that one of them is paying off college student loans, about $400 per month.  That covers basics of transportation and utilities and such, and leaves them $1,522 per month.  Typically, adults might spend about $450 per month on food, I’ll suggest a monthly food budget for this family of about $1,300.  SNAP benefits cover $400, and $900 comes from their income, leaving them about $622 for all other expenditures. Other expenditures would include durable goods like computers and appliances and clothing and shoes and furniture, nondurable goods like toilet paper and soap, entertainment other than the internet, services like child care, out-of-pocket medical care, and putting aside money for savings.  The $1,200 monthly rent I estimated is about right for a two-bedroom apartment in Sangamon County (fair market rent for a two-bedroom, which is the 40th percentile, is $1,132). In Chicago, the two-bedroom apartment cost is going to be closer to $1,800, which is $600 more than what they would pay in Springfield, and leave them with about $22 for everything else after covering food, housing, utilities, transportation, and debt serving on college loans and car loans. The higher rent would increase their SNAP benefit, but still, they would be in a tight squeeze.

The result of this examination of a hypothetical family is to determine that at just under 130% of poverty, a household with one full-time adult earning $22.50 per hour and a stay-at-home partner and two children can just about make ends meet, but only because they are helped by about $400 per month in SNAP, plus the benefits of the child tax credits, Earned Income Tax Credits, and Medicaid, as well as free school lunches.  But them in a place like Chicago where they would pay $600 more each month for rent, and they can’t make it.  They seriously must cut down on food (very rarely eat out, or only eat the least expensive sort of food you can get when eating out), get by with just one car, and have a very small budget for clothing, appliances, and probably but nothing in savings each month. For such a family, the $400 per month in SNAP benefits and the free school lunches (if their children are in school) make a huge difference, because their income is close to the minimum they need to live a dignified and autonomous life. If the stay-at-home parent takes a job, child care expenses will go up substantially, as will the costs of transportation, and the increased income will diminish the EITC and get the family off Medicaid and on to the subsidized health care exchanges to find a subsidized health care plan for their family. If the second adult income is over about $800 per month, the family would lose the $400 in SNAP benefits.

Actually, for the adult earning “a little bit” by working very part time, bringing in another $1000 per month, is going to be paying about $226 of that $1,000 in payroll and income taxes, another $500 in lost SNAP and Medicaid benefits and decreasing EITC benefits, and end up with only about $274 more in spending money, which might be lost if they need to pay more for day care or child care and mass transit or use of a second car while off at their job earning that $1,000.  This shows that for a family with one income-earner at about 130% of poverty (one adult earning $22.50 working full-time year-round), it’s probably not economically viable for the second adult in the household to work part-time, as the loss of benefits and increased taxes cancel out most of the higher gross pre-tax household income. 

Considering immigration policies proposed by two candidates, a student's reaction

  In light of the upcoming elections, I have tried to keep myself as informed as possible about both candidates’ policy plans for their potential time in office. As much as I would like to argue that morality is salient in terms of who we choose to run our country, I am actively trying to remove myself from the mindset of “moral righteousness” and concentrate on policies that would ultimately better the lives of all Americans while increasing the health of our economy. One policy area that is completely divided—and I cannot seem to understand why—is the issue of immigration. This is one aspect of the divide I do believe we need to not only look at in terms of policy, but also in terms of understanding the value of human beings.  

I recommend that we approach many questions with open-minded attitudes. If you could cleanse your heart so that no remnant of either love or hate could linger there, so that love would not blindly incline you toward error, or hate repel you from truth, you would be in a better mental state-of-mind to dispassionately consider the arguments of various sides. Of course, you must not abandon your moral compass, so that you can apply your ethics and values to the contrasting opinions, but that needs to come after you have open-mindedly considered each position with sympathy and trust in the side that presents its position. 

Before I get into a more neutral view of the candidates differing views on immigration, I feel it would be insincere not to explain my own thoughts on the issue. I understand that immigration policies are put in place to protect our country and that all countries have their own set of immigration laws in place. Some countries are made up of mostly foreign-born citizens while others have strict regulations so much so that it is almost impossible to gain citizenship. Those who know the history of what this country was built on understand that the earliest “American” citizens were literally immigrants themselves. My irritation lies in that fact; Christopher Columbus didn’t discover this land. There were successful, thriving tribes of indigenous people living here first who had their land forcefully taken over, were reduced to slaves, and were essentially given a death sentence in doing so. These “great Americans” were immigrants themselves, and we gloss over that undeniable fact with ease when we are talking about how strict and sometimes brutal, we feel the need to be with immigration laws today. I can agree to a certain extent that immigration laws are imperative to keep this country safe, fruitful, and flourishing. Though it is deplorable to me that some of us justify those laws simply because this is our country, and we should keep everyone else out. Due to our history, the logic—or lack thereof—of many individuals entitlement to gatekeeping this country simply infuriates me. But I digress.

I think the nations with many immigrants, such as the United Arab Emirates, do not give citizenship to the guest workers and foreign residents, but I could be wrong.  Western European nations and the USA tend to have a percentage of the population between the high single digits and low double digits that are foreign-born. I think the United States these days has about 15% of the population foreign-born (including my wife and my brother-in-law, and two of my four grandparents when they were alive). Germany has 18% of its population as immigrants, and 28.7% of its population has a migration background. In the UK, it’s 16% who are foreign-born. In France, it’s a little over 10%. In Canada, it’s about 23% of the population. In United Mexican States about 1% of the population is foreign-born, including about 800,000 who were born in the United States of America.  Taiwan has about 3.4% of it’s population foreign-born, mostly from Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

The role of immigration in protecting a country has two sides.  Many people are concerned that with declining birth-rates, a country will be weakened as its population declines unless it allows some immigrants to help stabilize the population.  Thus, immigration boosts a nation’s population and makes it stronger.  On the other hand, many citizens do not want to have so many immigrants enter their country that they feel their national culture is threatened or diluted, and sometimes people feel their nation may face a security threat if immigrants actively try to change their countries in ways that weaken the cultural strength of the nation. 

The United States and other nations of the Americas are societies made of mixtures of indigenous people/ideas and immigrants or persons enslaved and brought to the land. As Samuel Sewall put it in his hymn for peace written on January 1, 1701: “…So Asia and Africa, Europa with America, All four in concert join'd, shall sing…” We’re all brought together here because of the decisions of our ancestors (or ourselves, if we are immigrants). The countries of Europe may claim to have cultures based on tribes or ethnicities or cultures that have existed on their land for many centuries, and those cultures may be favored as the “national” cultures, although in most cases, there are many minority ethnicities and historical colonies of other ethnic groups even in the nations of Europe and Asia, not to mention the vast diversity of tribal peoples in most African lands. 

All governments have a duty to protect their citizens.  In democratic societies, the government should also generally enforce policies that are favored by the electorate, with the limit that the Constitution or values enshrined in the Constitution should be held as more important than any temporary whim of the electorate (if the electorate feels strongly enough about an issue, they must have means of changing the constitution, but that approach should be a more difficult process than passing mere laws). Most Americans like immigrants, and want to keep the nation open to a certain number of people who come here as part of family unification efforts, and bring in a smaller group of people who have skills or abilities that American citizens lack, and bring in an even smaller group of people who are fleeing oppression or danger in their homelands. The minority who are actively xenophobic and only want to allow in immigrants who are like them (English-speaking western Europeans or Canadians, I suppose) are especially vocal and vehement in their opposition to immigration, but they are certainly not a majority of the population. Perhaps most Americans prefer that only 5% or 10% of the population ought to be foreign-born, and they feel uneasy when 15% of us are foreign-born.  

When we are talking about the policy proposals of both candidates, we need to fully understand both sides. Donald Trump’s emphasis on fixing what he feels is a broken immigration system is to continue building the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, which ideally would be fully funded by Mexico. He aims to restrict both legal and illegal immigration, which focused on a travel ban on Muslim-majority countries. He introduced a “zero-tolerance” policy that separated children from their parents who were entering the country illegally. He has proposed merit-based immigration laws that gave preference to skilled workers over family-based immigration to bring focus to the job market and increase economic health.

I must address a few concerns with his proposals. First, I literally cannot comprehend the effectiveness or efficiency of this idea to prohibit illegal immigrants from entering the U.S. Throughout history, walls have been somewhat successful in keeping invaders out during war. However, walls deteriorate. People find ways to breach them, build tunnels under them, or find ways around them. There is not one wall in history that has been completely invulnerable. I also genuinely do not understand how or why Mexico would agree to pay for such securities—I mean, how would that country benefit from such an expensive endeavor? That is a huge promise with no factual backing as to how he would get Mexico to agree to such terms. 

I think every humane government official in almost any country would prefer that 100% of immigrants and visitors entered their country following legal processes, and no one came in illegally, without permission or documents. Persons who enter a nation without authorization are vulnerable to many cruel and dishonest practices.  Employers and landlords may cheat them and exploit them, and they would have little recourse to seek legal help. Their exploitation would lower wages in the sectors of the economy where they found employment (e.g., agriculture, food processing, landscaping, construction, informal day labor), and that would harm citizens and legal immigrants, whose wages in those sectors would be depressed by competition with the undocumented or illegal workers. Yes, some economists (Milton Freedman comes to mind) have said that the phenomenon of illegal immigration and an illegal workforce is beneficial to everyone (he claimed exploitation as an illegal worker in the American labor force still gave illegal immigrants a better life than they could hope for working in their countries-of-origin). 

So, this is to say that Democratic and Republican candidates should generally agree that they would like to stop illegal immigration, but they differ in the methods they proposed to use, and how far they would like to prioritize this policy goal. Trump claims it is one of his highest goals. He would dramatically increase resources devoted toward the issue. His behavior suggests his words may be false, since when the Democratic and Republican legislators had a bipartisan bill to increase and reform resources used for immigration and the fight against illegal immigration, Trump told Republican legislators not to pass that law. Many people who become undocumented or illegal residents come here legally (arriving at airports or legal border crossings), and just overstay their allowed time here. A wall wouldn’t stop that type of illegal immigration. Illegal crossing into the United States is very dangerous, and many people die crossing in remote areas.  Perhaps walls that are staffed with border guards all along the border would save lives, but the walls could be electronic at possibly a lower cost than creating a massive metal wall the whole length of the border.

Now, I want to touch on Kamala Harris’s immigration proposals. Harris wants to build a pathway for citizenship while still increasing immigration restrictions (i.e. improved asylum rules and partial border shutdowns if illegal crossings reach a certain number). She focuses on family reunification policies, keep DACA in place, and emphasizes immigration rights that she believes are important to increase the economy. From what I have researched, she believes in equality for immigrants while trying to address the root cause of the migration from South and Central America. 

I have gone past my hour time limit for this assignment, and although I have more, I wish I could say about this issue, I want to say this; there is a humane, respectful, and responsible way to go about immigration policy. We may never figure out the perfect way to deal with immigration, we must remember that these individuals are human beings. I can say undoubtedly that Trump’s immigration policy proposals are not only ineffective but also lack the understanding that these people are human beings who deserve quality of life, no matter where they came from or where they may end up. Immigration is an issue that I believe in the depths of my soul should be treated with humanity. 

Sources:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-presidential-candidates-stand-immigration/story?id=103313097

https://www.docketwise.com/blog/where-the-2024-presidential-election-candidates-stand-on-immigration

Trump also seems to lack any understanding of the USA’s obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol (which the USA accepted on 1 November 1968—The Senate consented to accession, and President Nixon signed it). Our obligations are to accept any person who presents herself or himself on our territory and requests protection and asylum from persecution, and allow them to remain in our nation while we investigate the veracity of their claims of persecution. We cannot send them back to the place where they say they will be persecuted unless we find that their claims of persecution are false or without merit. 

As President Nixon said: “United States accession to the Protocol would thus constitute a significant and symbolic element in our ceaseless effort to promote everywhere the freedom and dignity of the individual and of nations; and to secure and preserve peace in the world.”

Housing Policy Paper

There is a housing crisis within America, especially in growing states such as Georgia, Arizona, Florida, and New Mexico where rents increased by 6% to 9% from 2022 to 2023; and nearly half of all renters spend more than 30% of their incomes on rent. While all other household expenses have had inflation rates between 1% and 2% in 2024, year-to-year housing cost inflation has slowly declined from 8% (in January 2023) to 4.85% (in September 2024), which is still very high.  The Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023 is a bill introduced by Democratic Representative Maxine Waters of Los Angeles in June of 2023, and was co-sponsored by 64 Democratic Representatives (no Republicans).  This bill was the Democratic Party’s plan to address the housing crisis by providing housing expansion, community advancement, and the distribution of funds to public housing. This proposed bill has a broad focus, generally trying to supply affordable or subsidized housing to those who struggle to pay rent or find permanent housing they can afford, but specifically funding programs for rural rental housing, Native American housing, seniors, persons with disabilities, and residents of neighborhoods suffering from underinvestment and blight.  Essentially, the bill provides funding for the many programs run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but the bill would have significantly increased funding to HUD with very substantial increases in funding for housing choice vouchers and programs that would lead to the “construction, purchase, or rehabilitation” of affordable homes.  The purpose was to make a wide impact within the housing issue.  

However, as the House of Representatives was led by Republicans, and the no Republicans co-sponsored the bill, the bill faced poor prospects of passage in the 118th Congress. Instead, the Republican-controlled House passed a bipartisan funding continuation bill in late September of 2024 (the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025), and the Republican alternative bill for Housing and Urban Development (Title II of H.R. 4820) was postponed and never passed. The Republican bill (H.R. 4820) proposed $27.4 billion for housing choice vouchers, whereas the Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023 would have allocated $24 billion for Housing Choice Vouchers. In contrast, the Democratic Party bill would have made $65 billion for repairing and preserving over 500,000 public housing units, whereas the Republican bill proposed only the usual $8.4 billion for this purpose.  The Democratic bill aimed to increase the supply of affordable housing and invest significantly in public housing, whereas the Republican bill did not aim to do this, and instead made modest increases in funding for housing choice voucher program.

While neither of the housing bills (the Democratic Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023 and the Republican H.R. 4820 Appropriations Act) have been passed in the 118th Congress, the American housing crisis has worsened. The market forces creating a lack of affordable housing, the government’s failure to invest in permanent supported housing (a combination of subsidized housing and mental health and addiction treatment and support), the continuing meager and inadequate support for addiction treatment and mental health services, and the refusal to invest in significant increases in housing choice voucher programs or public housing, have all created an epidemic of homelessness across the nation. The January 2023 count of the homelessness population was 653,104 people, which was a huge increase over the 580,462 counted in 2022, which was itself the highest count since 2014, when recovery from the Great Recession was improving the situation. Between 2019 and 2023 the numbers who entered emergency shelters for the first time increased by nearly 25% (Soucy et al.). Even ones within a home face issues with maintaining that status. In 2021, nearly 50% of adult renters surveyed were experiencing housing insecurity in the form of likely to be evicted (Soucy et al.). There is an ever-growing need for affordable housing accommodation as there has been increasing homelessness and housing insecurity within America. Providing affordable housing and housing accommodation has shown to decrease issues that surround the crisis.

Public housing and housing accommodation make a positive change in the economy, overcrowding, job opportunities, poverty, health conditions, and school opportunities for children. It has been shown that for every $1 spent on public housing generates an additional $2.12 in economic activity (Pagaduan, Todman). Putting money into this project generates jobs and economic growth as well as providing a proactive solution to a crisis within America. By providing housing, children who are in households receiving housing support show improvement in their academic performance. When in subsidized housing programs, there are statistically significant benefits for children in terms of their future adulthood earnings (Pagaduan). Housing changes the living of the people it is provided to. The purpose of the Housing Crisis Response Act is to make a wide impact within the housing issue.

The Housing Crisis Response Act calls for over 150 billion dollars to be set aside for crucial housing development. This is in the form of creating, advancing, or maintaining public housing, affordable and accessible housing, home ownership opportunities, and more. There are investments made to energy efficient housing, community development, and lead-paint hazard control and other housing related health concerns. Much of public housing has not been updated or replaced since 1999 (CLPHA). Over 90% of public housing is 30+ years old (CLPHA). Unfortunately, there is no mention of an idea of what to do with individuals in unsafe or unlivable assisted homes. There is not certainty they will have security in housing when the development or reconstruction of their original home needs to take place. Not only is there an increased need for housing, but there is also an extreme lack of expansion of public or affordable housing. This is why money is split into different sections, amounts varying on possible importance of need.

The bill was made with budget in mind. The money has already been allocated to different populations and types of housing. The financial aid is distributed via grants, other housing acts, and the Secretary of HUD. The grants can be awarded to local governments, assisted living facilities, public housing agencies, nonprofit organizations, and for-profit developers. The money is intended for investing, revitalizing, developing, assisting, supporting, and maintaining property and people. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that all the money given will be put towards the right thing. There is no allocated representative to watch a project through or mention of receipts kept of construction. Though, the various allocations and areas the policy will reach provide different means towards security of housing for those without. The bill has been made with the intention to reach a wide population.

The Housing Crisis Response Act has a plan to reach many experiencing housing insecurities. This bill has direct plans to address the housing crisis of people with disabilities, the elderly, Native American communities, rural communities, multifamily households, and first-generation home buyers. This population of citizens have the most need for housing stability as they are the most likely to experience housing insecurity. Unfortunately, this bill does not mention first generation immigrants which is another sensitive population to the housing crisis. Although, this is a wide range of people in need of the support and services this bill can cover, it might miss some vulnerable populations. The policy could change many people’s lives.

Overall, the Housing Crisis Response Act is a well planned out bill that addresses the crisis of housing and homelessness in America. It does this by allocating money towards different categories of development, revitalization, support, investment, assistance, and maintenance whether it be for sustainable housing or the people in need of housing.

Another criticism of the Democratic Party’s plan would come from fiscal conservatives who would point out that “taxes are already high” and “even with our high federal income taxes, we still don’t take in enough tax revenue to cover the spending we are already doing, so we have a big deficit that drives up the national debt and forces payment on the interest of the national debt to increase each year”.  Other criticisms might come from people who say the solution would be to move persons from areas where housing expenses are high to areas where housing expenses are low, rather than helping people afford housing in high-rent areas of the country. Others might question whether crowding is really so bad: “our ancestors in the 19th century lived in tiny homes or cabins, and they built this magnificent country”.  

A central contrast I would have highlighted is this: the Democratic plan calls for the creation of many new affordable housing units and a substantial increase in funding to maintain and rehabilitate existing public housing or housing units.  The Republican plan is pretty much to go along as things are, with some modest increases in the housing voucher program.  

Works Cited

Council of Large Public Housing Authorities. “Public Housing Facts.” CLPHA, 2012, clpha.org/public-housing/facts. 

Pagaduan, Julie. “Millions of Americans Are Housing Insecure: Rent Relief and Eviction Assistance Continue to Be Critical.” National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2 Dec. 2021, endhomelessness.org/resource/housing-insecurity-rent-relief-eviction-assistance/. 

Soucy, D., Janes, M., and Hall, A. “State of Homelessness: 2024 Edition.” National Alliance to End Homelessness, 5 Aug. 2024, endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/. 

Todman, A. (2019). Housing in America: Assessing the Infrastructure Needs of America’s Housing Stock. Testimony by Adrianne Rodman at the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services, April 30, 2019. https://democrats-financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hhrg-116-ba00-wstate-todmana-20190430.pdf 

Waters, Maxine. “Legislative Search Results | Congress.Gov | Library of Congress.” H.R.4233 - Housing Crisis Response Act of 2023, 2023, www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4233. 

Some Details About the Project-Based Rental Assistance Program

 Families and individuals in poverty often struggle to afford housing, adding yet another obstacle in the attempt to break out of the perpetual cycle of financial and housing instability. To help aid in breaking those barriers, the government offers several housing assistance programs to those who are low-income, allowing families to avoid housing instability or homelessness.  Programs such as Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) allow tenants access to affordable units in which their rent is paid based on their income. Section 8 PBRA has allowed those who are low- or no-income, disabled, elderly, and those who may be escaping domestic violence or homelessness the ability to maintain affordable housing, easing the burden of the inability to meet the expenses of Fair Market Rent. While the program has proven to be a useful tool with the  virtue of aiding millions of people [perhaps about 11 million?] who may have been facing homelessness, there are concerns with  the efficacy of the program due to the lengthy process of signing up for the program, the massive wait time to be approved for Section 8 PBRA, and the lack of funding to assist more low-income families who may fall just barley outside of the eligibility requirements who will continue to struggle to afford housing. [Those who believe housing is a human right point out that the five to six million households receiving vouchers are only a fraction of the thirteen to twenty million households that either qualify or at least seem to need help securing stable and decent housing]. To understand both the benefits and disadvantages of the program, I should clarify what Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance fully consists of.

Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, named after Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937, was created in 1974. The program consists of multi-year rental assistance contracts between for-profit and non-profit private owners and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The subsidized rental assistance program allows tenants to pay rent based on their income. In contracts between private owners and HUD, HUD agrees to pay the difference between income-based rents and agreed upon contract rents, while owners of Section 8 PRBA units agree to manage units upheld by federal housing rules. Owners are responsible for the management of these properties during the length of the contract, which generally have 20-year terms that can be renewed at the discretion of both private owners and the HUD. Most entities who own Section 8 PBRA properties are private for-profit agencies, although some public housing agencies and non-profit entities own a large share of these properties. 

The Project-Based Rental Assistance program differs from the Housing Choice Voucher Programs in that it is not a tenant-based program, where low-income families have more freedom in where they can use their vouchers (essentially, anywhere a landlord will accept them charging a rent in a reasonable range and has a place to offer them that meets HUD’s quality standards). Tenant-based programs allow tenants to rent any privately owned home that meets the programs guidelines while project-based programs only allow tenants to stay units that have been designated as PBRA properties.  Still, the program serves nearly 2 million people (1.2 million households) today, a number that has been increasing since the 2012 Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) permitted public housing properties to be converted to the PBRA program.

Individuals and families must be considered low-income to qualify for Section 8 PBRA. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “low-income” refers to income that is less than 80 percent of the local Area Median Income (AMI). Very-low income families and individuals are those who are at or below 50 percent of local AMI. Unauthorized and temporary immigrants are ineligible for Section 8 PBRA housing, unless their household is one with mixed immigration status members. Mixed households with members who are eligible can be given prorated assistance. Participating housing developments must have at least 40 percent of the annually available subsidized units designated for extremely low-income families (those who are 30 percent of local AMI) while most of the remaining units are for those with incomes below 50 percent of the local AMI. Tenants are required to pay either $25 per month, or no more than 30 percent of their income for utilities and rent. There is no time limit on how long one can receive assistance, except if their income increases to where they no longer qualify. If income increases significantly to a point that they no longer quality for Section 8 PBRA vouchers, tenants are generally allowed to pay market rent out of their own pocket if they want to remain in their unit. 

Families who want to live in PBRA properties must apply to the property directly, giving property owners full discretion on how to screen potential tenants. Some criteria for property owners can be a tenant’s rental history, criminal background, and credit history. This may suggest that a person who has experienced extreme poverty, and who thus would be more than likely to lack a stable rental history, could be denied based on the owners’ preferences, despite being eligible for the PBRA due to having low-income. Though this is not a common event, property owners’ preferences for their waitlists have affected the characteristics of their tenants; in 2023, roughly 36% of PBRA households had children while 65% of those households did not. Many properties designate their units for the elderly or for those with disabilities, making additional services needed for these subgroups to be easily attainable since they have the potential to be in one area together.  While this can be beneficial for those groups when funding for the program is limited, this can exclude a considerable amount of people in poverty who are struggling to pay for and maintain their own housing. 

Funding for Section 8 PBRA is primarily controlled by congress through annual discretionary appropriations, funds approved each year by the president and congress for discretionary spending, which are then issued to the project based rental assistance account. This funds the annual renewal of PBRA contracts, rental subsidies paid to property owners monthly, and administrative fees for Performance-Based Contract Administrators (PBCAs) chosen by HUD. Appropriations for the PBRA program have grown from $11.75 billion in 2019 to $14.91 billion in 2023, an increase of 27%. This is a result of rents being annually adjusted to reflect inflation, creating cost growth and increasing subsidies of per-unit costs, as well as an increase in the number of units (the increase in contracts is attributed to the 2012 RAD program). Still, there is inadequate funding for the program that has led to massive wait times for families who need immediate assistance. Nationally, families spend almost two and a half years on average on waitlists, while some areas have average wait times of up to eight years. In the meantime, they face additional hardship sinking deeper into poverty and may face homelessness.  If individuals or families manage to get off the waitlist, the program is very effective in aiding those with low-income to avoid homelessness and ensure housing stability. Allocating more funds to the program would decrease waitlist times and aid a larger pool of individuals to obtain affordable housing.

Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance programs give low-income individuals and families an advantage in allowing them to begin rising out of poverty through stable housing. While the program has improved the lives of millions of Americans, it is not without its disadvantages. The program has many potential benefits if it is properly funded with reasonable oversight on the management of privately owned properties. If funding was increased, we may be able to broaden the eligibility requirements for Section 8 PVBA’s to assist more people and shorten the amount of time on waitlists to prevent any additional hardship to already struggling families.  

This is a good paper for an undergraduate.  You have a neutral tone, and the writing meets my standards.  I couldn’t help but jotting off some more ideas and facts (which follow) to offer some more insights into housing vouchers as they exist in 2024.  I’ve tried to add some attention to the complaints about the Section 8 PVBA voucher program from persons like myself (who think it’s obscene and abusive that the program only covers about 20% of the households that need this assistance), and those who have insisted in deep cuts in discretionary public spending based on some ideological opposition to the Federal Government promoting the general welfare and securing domestic tranquility with public funds raised through taxes or else some perverse hatred and contempt directed against persons with low incomes. 

Persons in poverty are stressed by the threats they face to their well-being.  Lacking money, they can find it difficult to purchase food, pay rent, handle utility bills, or insure and maintain a vehicle to get them to their jobs. Conveniences and pleasures that middle-class and wealthier people take for granted, such as having access to phones, internet service, streaming services, and other pleasures of modern life can be difficult to secure. Always there is the threat of disaster; some loss of income, perhaps caused by an illness, or reduced hours at a workplace, that could make housing, food, or heat unaffordable. This insecurity, instability, and constant exposure to risk causes high levels of stress, which can damage the mind/brain, and raises chances of suffering from almost all illness not caused by genetic abnormalities. Coping with this situation, many of the 10% to 15% of Americans who meet the definition of poverty, or the other 20% who live with incomes that put them slightly above poverty, remain in an intergenerational cycle of diminished life chances. 

The good news is that in recent years the inflation-adjusted incomes of Americans, even those at the lowest percentiles of the income distribution, have been increasing.  The bad news is that upward mobility is decreasing, and even with increasing incomes, basic needs such as housing are unaffordable for the households at the lowest 20-30% of the income distribution. With 131 million households, there are over 13 million households (over 25 million persons) in the bottom 10% of the income distribution, and 39 million households (over 89 million people) in the bottom 30%. 

 Generally, the American economy has been expanding, which allows inflation-adjusted incomes to rise for people, even if they do not move up in the income distribution. However, the historical trends are not good. Raj Chetty and associates (in 2016) found that 50% to 55% of children born in the late 1970s and early 1980s were earning higher inflation-adjusted incomes than their parents had done when their parents were in their 40s.  However, over 60% of persons born in the 1950s were earning more than their parents, and among those born in the 1940s, 80% to 90% earned more than their parents. Michael Strain estimates that about 36% of children who grow up in households with incomes in the bottom income quintile end up as adults who have remained in the bottom quintile, and another 27.5% rise up to the second quintile, which implies over 63% (nearly two-thirds of children who grow up in households with low incomes) become adults with low or modest incomes.  For families at the 10% income percentile, incomes in 2023 were at nearly $19,000, while the 10% income percentile families had earned only $15,500 in 2013 (in inflation-adjusted 2023 dollars), or $16,600 in 2003.  Families at the 20th percentile earned $33,000 in 2023, compared to $26,700 in 2013, and $28,400 in 2003. In 2023, families at the 40th percentile earned $62,200 (See Table A-4a in the 2023 Income Report from the Census Bureau). 

In 2023, the average American household (technically, the average “consumer unit”) spent $25,400 on housing alone. Statista reported that average two-bedroom housing units cost $1,317 per month ($15,804 per year) in November 2023. In other words, families at the 40th percentile would spend 25% of their income on an average two-bedroom apartment (which is very affordable), but a family at the 20th percentile would spend 48% of their income on that average two-bedroom apartment (a sign of extreme housing insecurity) while a family at the 10th percentile would need to spend 83% of their income on an average-rent two-bedroom apartment. 

To help the lower income households, states and the federal government provide a variety of supports, such as food assistance (SNAP benefits, WIC, the National School Lunch Programs), income supports (the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, TANF, SSI, SSDI, Social Security), and health benefits (Medicaid).  When it comes to housing, the largest program provided by the federal government is the Housing Choice Voucher program, which gets slightly over $30 billion ($30.25 billion in 2024). The Project-Based Rental Assistance (a sort of housing choice voucher program where the choice is limited to affordable housing projects, or in other words, “public housing”) accounts for about $15 billion ($14.9 billion in 2024). Another $8 billion goes to maintaining and improving the affordable housing in public housing areas (things like new roofs or removing asbestos and lead paint). Together, the $45 billion spent on the two largest voucher programs and $8 billion spent on public housing make up $53 billion (74%) of the total $72 billion dollar budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  The housing choice vouchers help about 2.3 million households, while the project-based housing vouchers help about 1.2 million. Another 856 thousand households get helped by the public housing fund, leaving about 153 thousand households to get subsidized housing earmarked for the elderly or housing for persons with disabilities.  Some populations, such as young adults who age out of foster care and any veteran who has a very low income should receive housing vouchers so that those populations are entirely covered, but for the rest of the low-income Americans struggling to pay for rent, there is no promise that they will get a voucher, or find a landlord willing to take the voucher if they do get one. 

If you sum up all the households getting housing vouchers or public housing of one type or another, and notice that the total is about 4.5 million households, and then compare that to the approximately 13 million households in the bottom 10% of the income distribution, or the approximately 26 million households if we include the bottom fifth of the income distribution, it should become clear that the current housing policy is in no way comprehensive.  Clearly, most people who require help securing stability in their housing situation (situations where they can afford housing without it taking up too much of their income and placing them in a situation where eviction or foreclosure is a constant threat) are not getting helped by the housing choice vouchers or project-based vouchers or public housing. 

To help these millions of households who struggle to obtain secure and sustainable housing where they won’t risk getting kicked out when they can’t afford to pay their rent, the HUD budget also offers a billion dollars for Native American Programs, another billion for Housing for the Elderly, $360 million for persons with disabilities, $175 for self-sufficiency programs.

There are some studies of the beneficial influences enjoyed by low-income households who gain access to housing vouchers. A primary benefit is that families are less likely to become homeless, and this is especially true for families who are exhausting their TANF benefit limits. Families also are subjected to less crowding and were able to enjoy living in one place for a longer period.

Some persons may object to the housing voucher program on the basis of fairness.  Such critics may point out that the billions of dollars spent on housing low-income households are taken from households with higher incomes, depriving them of the ability to keep and spend or save their own money. As the HUD budget is discretionary, it is vulnerable to large cuts.  However, laws mandate that vouchers are provided to very-low income veterans and young adults recently aging out of foster care, and most vouchers are provided through contracts between local housing authorities and landlords, with these contracts lasting usually for about 20 years, so the Federal government could not suddenly eliminate the voucher programs or cut them too deeply.  Yet, if the programs were cut, this could help reduce the federal budget deficit, and help allow taxes to be reduced. The consequences to low-income families would be perhaps harsh, as they would face more housing instability, crowding, and possibly homelessness. Yet, the general panic and desperation this could trigger in the lower-wage population would drive people to work harder, possibly taking two jobs, (nearly 70% of non-elderly non-disabled adults using housing vouchers are employed or recently employed, but perhaps the 30% who aren’t working could be pushed back into the labor force).  The desperation for jobs to achieve stable housing when housing vouchers are eliminated could drive potential workers to take any job offered, allowing those who hire workers to offer lower wages and less satisfactory working conditions.  Thus, the persons who own businesses could make higher profits from low-wage workers while also enjoying lower taxes resulting from reducing spending on housing vouchers.  While many people may think that the owners of businesses already are doing well enough, and should not begrudge housing voucher assistance to the 5 to 6 million persons who benefit from these programs, some may oppose such government involvement in the housing market on principle, or out of self-interest. 

References

Acosta, S., & Gartland, E. (2021, July 22). Families Wait Years for Housing Vouchers Due to Inadequate Funding. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/families-wait-years-for-housing-vouchers-due-to-inadequate-funding 

Fiscal Data explains federal spending. Federal Spending | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data. (n.d.-a). https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#:~:text=Discretionary%20spending%20is%20money%20formally,as%20science%20and%20environmental%20organizations. 

Policy basics: Section 8 project-based Rental Assistance. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (n.d.). https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/section-8-project-based-rental-assistance 

McCarty, M. (2023, December 11). The Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance Program. Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12545 

Policy basics: Section 8 project-based Rental Assistance. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (n.d.). https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/section-8-project-based-rental-assistance