DC Rents Out of Control, Despite Rent Control

January 25, 2016

The District of Columbia’s rent control law is stronger than just about any other in the country, I’m told. But it has loopholes that leave lower-income residents vulnerable to rate spikes — and perhaps homelessness.

We generally see “loophole” used to refer to provisions in the tax code that allow corporations and/or individuals to pay far less than they’d otherwise owe — or nothing at all. Everybody who cares to knows about these.

Not so for the loopholes in the rent control law. But some nonprofits, including several that provide free legal services to low-income residents have discovered them. And they’ve developed an agenda to reform the law.

A fact sheet distributed at a recent briefing I attended listed well over a dozen changes. Far more than I can take on here. So I’ll confine myself to a relative few fixable problems that have broad impacts.

Caps on Rent Increases

First off — and to me, the biggest surprise — the rent control law doesn’t apply to units built after the original version of the law was passed in 1975 or to units vacant then. The law exempts other units too, but this seems to me the biggest loophole, if one can call it that.

For units not exempt, landlords may increase rents for most tenants by the percent increase in the Washington metro area consumer price index the Social Security Administration uses, plus an additional 2%.

No extra 2% for elderly and disabled tenants whose incomes don’t exceed $40,000 a year. And no increase greater than 5% when the CPI rises by more. They’ve got to file a form to get this relative protection, however, which means they need to know this much of the law.

When a unit becomes vacant, the cap, whatever it be, increases to 10% or to what a “comparable unit” rents for, provided the increase isn’t greater than 30%. Comparable units are defined by physical characteristics, e.g., overall size, floor plan, equipment, condition.

Lots of units have come into the market in the last 30 years, of course. And lots rent for goodly sums, especially now that more high-earners have chosen to live in the city.

So landlords have an obvious incentive to choose tenants unlikely to stay for more than a couple of years, if that, e.g., students, employees on short-term assignments away from their home base.

Case-by-Case Exemptions

Just because tenants live in covered units doesn’t mean they won’t get hit with large increases. Landlords can petition for exemptions from the caps.

They may, for example, claim that they’ll suffer “hardship” if they can’t collect more than the allowable rent. They don’t have to allege a potential loss — only that they won’t earn a 12% return on what they’ve invested in the property.

They’ve sought rent increases upwards of 100%, the DC Legal Aid Society has testified. And they can get them before the District has audited their paperwork and made a final decision on their claims.

Meanwhile, tenants are likely to leave or to fall behind in their rent, giving the landlord grounds to evict them. Cleaning out the building has advantages I’ve already mentioned.

Landlords have several other options for getting permission to charge far more than the law would ordinarily allow. They can, for example, petition for an annual 20%  increase to cover the costs of capital improvements, i.e., upgrades or renovations beyond ordinary repairs.

Capital improvement increases are supposed to last only until the landlord recovers the costs. Another option allows for a permanent increase when the costs of a “substantial rehabilitation” are considerably higher than the property’s assessed value. The increase in this case may be as high as 125%.

Landlords don’t necessarily rely on the success of these petitions, however. They can instead used the prospects of rent increases to get tenants signed onto voluntary agreements. These protect tenants from all but the usual rent increases, provided they agree to much higher rents for future tenants.

In one reportedly popular scenario, landlords then offer tenants the option of a buyout — some cash to clear out of their units. Every unit freed up becomes subject to the large increase, followed by the usual ongoing CPI-based increases.

Affordable Housing Losses Offset Gains

Even this over-simplified wade into the weeds shows one reason the District lost nearly half its lower-cost rental units during a recent 10-year period. Only about a fifth were still affordable for households with two full-time minimum wage workers.

Mayor Bowser has committed to substantial investments in new affordable housing construction and renovations to preserve some of what remains. Her administrators have other tools in the box as well, e.g., tax credits, conditions now attached to sales of publicly-owned lands.

But what’s built over here disappears over there — and apparently then some.

When the DC Council passed the rent control law, it intended to “protect low and moderate-income tenants from the erosion of their income from increased housing costs.”

What with one thing and another, the law covers, at most, roughly half the rent units in the city, according to somewhat dated Urban Institute estimates. That doesn’t mean all the tenants are protected, as we can see.

The Council now has two bills pending that would make the law work somewhat better. One would update and otherwise expand its protections for elderly tenants and those with disabilities. The other would partly, but only partly close the hardship petition loophole.

So there’s a lot more to do. The Latino Economic Development Center has a petition District residents can sign to support solutions the coalition I mentioned is advocating.


Recent Report Misreports Homelessness and Hunger in DC

January 14, 2016

Each year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors reports the results of a hunger and homelessness survey it takes of a subset of its member cities. Twenty-two responded last year, including the District of Columbia.

Past experience has made me wary of figures reported for the District. At least one key hunger figure got mangled several years ago, as I belatedly learned.

This time, I found key homelessness figures downright perplexing because they bore no resemblance to what the one-night count found — or for that matter, to anything else I’d read or heard about.

So I checked the figures with the Department of Human Services, which files the survey responses, based on what it receives from the Community Partnership to End Homelessness and the Capital Area Food Bank. Also checked directly with CAFB.

And sure ‘nough, something(s) got lost in translation, to put it kindly. Niggling about the figures may seem just a wonkish gotcha. But the USCM report does get cited by reporters, columnists and us social media types.

So I’m going to set the record straight, best as I can.

More Recorded As Served, Not Necessarily More Homeless

The USCM reports that the number of homeless families in the District increased by 60% between 2014 and 2015 and the number of homeless individuals by 11%.

Well, the increases actually reflect numbers served by programs funded at least partly by DHS — this courtesy of Dora Taylor, the agency’s public information officer, who herself seemed rather taken aback.

“Served” here means people generally got some form of assistance — not necessarily what they asked for or needed, but something that caused an intake worker to enter a record for them in the homeless information management system that the Community Partnership maintains to comply with federal requirements.

As Taylor suggested, the misreported homeless family increase may in part reflect the administration’s decision to open shelter doors to newly-homeless families year round, rather than only on freezing-cold days.

They didn’t all gain shelter, however. Services recorded include, for example, what’s referred to as “diversion” — usually an intake worker’s finding a friend or relative the family could stay with, however briefly.

Whatever the services, the reported increase seems far greater than what the welcome policy change can account for. Recall that it was intended partly to ease the annual crush at the intake center when winter set in.

I got nothing from DHS to help explain the reported uptick in homeless individuals. So I’ll just tee up two related hypotheses.

The HIMS probably had more records for singles because DHS and nonprofit partners had become convenient one-stop-shops of sorts — and still are. Caseworkers assess and then link singles to some form(s) of aid. All those assessed become part of the system, if they’re not in it already.

It’s also possible that more homeless singles chose to seek help because they’d heard that they had a better chance of getting affordable housing — time-limited for some and permanent, i.e., indefinite-term, with supportive services for those deemed chronically homeless.

More Requests for Help in Finding Free Food, Not Necessarily Increased Need

The USCM reports that requests for food assistance in the District increased, though not by how much. Still disturbing if requests reflect need.

They don’t. CAFB has no way to track the number of people who seek free groceries and/or meals. So it supplied a figure reflecting the increase in calls to its hotline, which makes referrals to nonprofits it helps supply.

As my CAFB contact remarks, the increase may reflect, at least in part the fact that more people in need know about the hotline. Doesn’t mean we don’t have a lot of residents who can’t afford to feed themselves and family members — only that we don’t know whether we’ve got more (or fewer).

Unmet Food Demand (If Any) Still a Mystery

The USCM reports that an estimated 24% of the demand for food assistance in the District went unmet in 2015. “Demand” here presumably refers to requests for groceries and/or meals provided by local nonprofits.

Not necessarily all, however, since CAFB would have no information from any nonprofit it didn’t help supply. It does, however, have data for the 444 nonprofits in its distribution network, thanks to a periodic survey Feeding American conducts.

But the latest survey results are for 2014. And the data CAFB can readily access are for all the Washington metro area programs in its network, not just those in the District. So we’ve got a flawed unmet demand estimate — and for the same reason as before.

Flawed Survey, But Not the Whole Story

What I’ve just said about the food assistance figures doesn’t reflect badly on CAFB. The USCM survey clearly asks questions that public agencies it contacts can’t answer, either from their own records or from what other sources can supply.

And respondents don’t get clear instructions on how to come up with such numbers as they can, my CAFB contact says.

There is, however, guidance for the homelessness questions. Cities are told that their best source will be their HIMS. This presumably opened the door to the misleading figures reported for the District. Door open doesn’t mean the Community Partnership — and ultimately DHS — had to walk through it, however.

We know we’ve got a serious homelessness problem in the District. We know that some residents at least sometimes don’t have enough to eat. But the figures should have raised red flags, I think.

Better to have gone back to the sources before responding. And better to have taken a pass on the survey — or at least some questions — than to have USCM report such faulty figures, however well-meaning its attempt to document urban needs.

 

 


Back to Bathrooms for Homeless DC Residents

January 11, 2016

The People for Fairness Coalition, an advocacy organization for homeless District of Columbia residents, is campaigning for public restrooms in the downtown area.

A spokesperson says they’re not only for the homeless. True enough. Tourists, shoppers, street vendors and people betwixt business meetings could benefit too. But there’s a difference.

I recall a time when I was near a small park where homeless people hang out and felt an urgent need to relieve myself. So I walked into a hotel and strolled through the lobby to the women’s room. Nobody said boo.

I’ve also on occasion ducked into a restaurant. Again, no one working there looked at me askance. This would hardly have been the case if I’d been wearing a tattered sweater and lugging bundles of all the belongings I still had.

Having clean, conveniently located public bathrooms anyone can use at any time seems to me merely the mark of a civilized city.

Those of us fortunate enough to have traveled abroad know they’re easy to find in Paris and in at least parts of other cities American tourists are likely to visit. Several U.S. cities now have them too, though not necessarily enough or open long enough.

Public Hygiene Lets Us Stay Human — an international advocacy group cleverly named to produce the acronym PHLUSH — argues that “toilet availability is a human right,” citing the broad right to sanitation the United Nations formally declared in 2010.

PHLUSH cites practical benefits too — and not only for health. Public toilets, it says, support downtown revitalization because people will stroll, window shop, etc. when they know they can find them. And businesses gain a positive imagine when they’re in neighborhoods that make a good first impression.

Such talking points could interest the downtown BID, which has invested in efforts to move homeless people off the streets — one of those cases where self-interest and public interest mesh.

The talking points (or something like) seem already to have influenced Councilmember Vincent Orange, since he’s introduced a bill to launch and evaluate a “mobile hygiene unit” — a bus converted to a bathroom with showers, as well as toilets.

We know he’s live to local business interests — his business, so to speak, as chair of the Business, Consumer Affairs and Regulatory Committee.

PFFC doesn’t seem much concerned about the motives. Nor should it be, if buses traveling around the city would meet the need they’re concerned with.

They wouldn’t, so far as I can see, do anything for homeless people — or for tourists, shoppers, etc. — who just need a toilet PDQ. And the pilot Councilmember Orange proposes would fund only one bus. No prospects of more until the two-year pilot ends.

Honolulu, which perhaps inspired the mobile unit solution, will soon have a fleet, including some buses with sleeping quarters. San Francisco, another model, also apparently has multiple buses.

PFFC members have thus far delivered mixed messages about the Orange bill. One says it’s “a great idea” — at least in part because of the showers. Another would prefer a restroom with a permanent location.

We shouldn’t let the forest get lost in these trees. The fact that PFFC is advocating for public restrooms speaks to a larger problem homeless people have in the District — and most other cities, I gather.

Shelters for those who don’t have children with them — those commonly termed single individuals, though they may be family members — generally insist that residents leave first thing in the morning and won’t let them back in before dinnertime or thereabouts.

So they wander the streets or take refuge in a McDonald’s, until they’re kicked out, or in a public library, if District rules don’t exclude them, e.g., by banning large bags. One way or the other, they’re on the streets a goodly part of the day — if for no other reason than to get to a shelter and stand in line because otherwise they’ll have no bed for the night.

No place then to pee, except in an alley or behind a bush, assuming they can persuade another homeless person to let them back in line afterwards. But we’ve got laws against heeding the call of nature in a public place — as indeed do a great many cities.

They don’t affect only homeless singles who rely on shelters, of course. Some, as I (and others) have written before, won’t go to a shelter. Last January’s one-night count found 544 on the streets or some other place “not meant for human habitation.”

Both they and the sheltered singles have no assured, 24-hour home base. This poses high risks to their mental and/or physical health, even if they’re not (yet) officially disabled. It makes finding — and keeping — a job extraordinarily difficult, as the story I recently recounted shows.

Kurt Runge, the Advocacy Director at Miriam’s Kitchen, says the mobile unit plan “could help address some very important basic needs in the short term.” But “[p]eople need a home of their own to take care of their personal needs.”

Housing surely is, as he says, “the solution to homelessness.” And it’s one the District should make a top priority in the upcoming budget cycle and beyond. But as the Executive Director of the DC Interagency Council on Homelessness has said, “we will always need shelter.”

So I would hope that this upsurge of interest in public bathrooms doesn’t divert attention from policies that make them a more pressing need than for anyone else in our community.


When Is a Hard-Up Family a Family?

December 14, 2015

Not long before Jesse died, we were chatting, as we often did, about issues I was working on — in this case, the District of Columbia’s homeless shelters.

I had to explain to him that if we became homeless and had no place to stay, we would have to live on the streets or spend our nights in separate sex-segregated shelters, then meet up some place or other when they turned us out at daybreak.

He was dumbfounded. It apparently had never occurred to him that we weren’t a family, according to the District’s homeless services policies.

I recalled the moment as I read reports of interviews with the homeless people the District is sweeping out of the campsites they’ve set up. The Department of Human Services, to its credit, has placed some of them in housing units. It wants most of them, however, to go into the shelters — at least, for awhile.

A fair number, it seems, don’t want to go — understandably, given conditions in what are called shelters for singles. Repeated references to bedbugs. Fears of having their belonging stolen. Fights. Bad food.

But it’s not only such shelter conditions. “They split you and your husband up,” said one woman interviewed. “We prefer to have privacy.”

None in the shelter for either — let alone privacy for the two together so they could comfort each other, talk about next steps and, well, do what couples do only when alone in a room with a door.

The problem, you see, is that they don’t have children in their care, just as Jesse and I wouldn’t have if we’d had to throw ourselves on the mercies of DHS.

This isn’t a singular safety net policy. We see it, for example, in states’ Medicaid policies. Twenty-two exclude all childless adults who don’t have disabilities, except pregnant women. All cover parents, though some only those far below the poverty line.

These are state choices, as the variations indicate. But the federal government itself doesn’t view childless couples as families — or for that matter, couples whose children are grown ups.

The only nationwide source of cash income for poor people who aren’t severely disabled is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. But couples who have no children living with them don’t qualify.

So-called general assistance programs could fill this gap in the safety net. But the federal government provides no funds for them. So states that had GA programs have exercised their unlimited flexibility to get rid of them or scale them back in various ways, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports.

Only 11 provide cash benefits to childless adults who aren’t demonstrably unemployable — because they’re elderly, for example, or disabled, but haven’t yet (and perhaps can’t) surmount the hurdles to gaining Supplemental Security Income.

SNAP (the food stamp program) does provide cash-equivalent aid for childless couples. But as I’ve written before, able-bodied adults without dependents can generally get benefits for only three months in any three-year period unless they’re working or participating in a job training program at least half-time.

This restriction applies to childless couples if both spouses or partners have no disabilities unless they’re caring for someone in the household who’s disabled or have a child on the way. And the chances that both can get into — and remain in — certified job training programs are, in many states, virtually nil.

The time limit originated in the same law that brought us TANF — the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

I mention this because it perversely disadvantages couples who’ve chosen not to have children unless and until they can afford to provide for their basic needs, plus the time, attention and opportunities that support healthy, well-rounded development. Seems like personal responsibility to me.

The federal Earned Income Tax Credit also disadvantages childless couples, even when lawfully wed. And it altogether denies the credit — and thus the potential refund — to young childless workers.

Far be it from me to say our safety net programs shouldn’t put a high priority on the well-being of the next generation. But we don’t have to choose between children and working-age adults who don’t have any.

And we surely don’t have to treat homeless couples who don’t have children with them as if they weren’t families.

 


Putting Brakes on Runaway DC Tax Breaks

December 10, 2015

The District of Columbia has pretty well recovered from the Great Recession. Not all residents have, of course. And some had no recession to recover from because they were jobless, homeless and the like before it began.

But a fair number do seem to have higher earnings now since tax revenues have increased and are expected to increase further during the next several years.

So barring some unforeseen disaster — or dreadful policy choices — we’re unlikely to see severe spending cuts driven by the District’s need to keep its budget balanced. That doesn’t mean the District has the wherewithal to meet all critical needs, however. Not even close.

For one thing, as I’ve remarked before, the District, like other state and local governments, will have to spend more merely to make up for shrinking federal support.

For another, the District has needs beyond what even less stingy federal funding would cover — affordable housing, new shelters for homeless singles, as well as families, better public education, especially for low-income and/or minority students …. Well, you can fill in the blank as well as I.

So the DC Council should do two things during the upcoming budget season — both under the heading of do no (further) harm.

Stop the Triggered Tax Cuts

The Budget Support Act the Council passed in 2014 includes a provision that makes certain tax cuts recommended by the Tax Revision Commission automatic when projected revenues are sufficiently greater than they were when the budget became final to keep it balanced, despite the losses.*

Basically, the Chairman chose the tax cuts he liked best. Then he ranked those that would have immediately thrown the budget out of whack so that the most preferred would kick in first, then the next and so on.

The priority order itself reflects some dubious preferences — a cut in the tax rate for personal incomes over $350,000, for example, and two increases in the minimum value estates must have to owe any District tax.

But the triggers are to my mind — and not mine only — irresponsible in principle because they deny Councilmembers the opportunity to weigh revenue losses against unmet spending needs on a case-by-case basis.

We’d expect triggers from Red states with governors and legislatures bound and determined to slash spending — and in at least some cases, convinced that tax cuts will stimulate so much growth as to pay for themselves.

And indeed, most, though not all states that have adopted triggers are Red. No economic booms. Google Kansas or Oklahoma budget deficit for specific sorry results.

Fortunately, the District isn’t controlled by officials who take their cues from the American Legislative Exchange Council, which promotes triggers as a way to starve governments of funds needed for services, as well as other laws its Koch brother and other corporate backers favor.

So it seems to me our elected representatives shouldn’t persist in an approach that will privilege tax cuts over services that could do more good for more people.

Stop Administrations From Needlessly Giving Money Away

Four years ago, the Council passed a sensible law to exert some discipline into the process of awarding tax breaks to specific entities or projects. It postponed any Council hearing until the Chief Financial Officer provided an assessment.

Well, the Bowser administration recently moved to give a $60 million property tax cut to the Advisory Board — a large consulting firm that had indicated it might move its headquarters to Virginia. Some commitments on the Board’s part, mostly jobs for District residents.

But the Board would probably hire at least as many residents anyway, the CFO opined. And the annual $6 million more it would have to pay without the cut would “not affect the company’s ability to maintain operations or continue its growth.”

In any event, the CFO said, “research indicates that tax incentives are generally not a critical factor in corporate locational decisions.” The Council rubber-stamped the tax break anyway.

This is hardly the first such tax giveaway. The District has a long history of them — more than I could possibly cite here, even if I could compile the list.

Like me, however, some of you may remember former Mayor Gray’s $32.5 million tax break package for LivingSocial — a bad bet, as it proved, on the company’s growth and new hires.

In this case, the CFO took a pass on whether enticing LivingSocial to locate its headquarters here would have economic benefits. But he again concluded that the company would be able to pay its expenses and sustain its operations without the tax breaks.

And he noted presciently that it had yet to turn a profit, casting doubts even then on benefits the District and its residents would reap. Unanimous approval from Councilmembers anyway.

So clearly, the law isn’t working as intended. And every time the Council approves one of these corporate tax breaks, it encourages other enterprises to engage in the same sort of extortion.

It could take an alternative approach. It could fold property tax reductions (technically, abatements) and other locally-funded tax incentives into the budget for economic development.

Not my idea. But to me, it makes all the sense in the world because tax breaks are a form of spending — hence the term tax expenditures, which is how budget wonks refer to them.

Putting a line item for corporate tax breaks into the budget would compel the administration and Council to weigh the total against other spending options — and force choices later, since the budget would cap the total dollar value of the giveaways.

Neither of these policy shifts would ensure sufficient funding for programs and services that benefit low-income residents — because they’re targeted or because they improve the economy and quality of life in our community.

But the shifts would tend to foster decisions that weigh direct spending needs against spending through the tax code.

* The 2015 Budget Control Act pushed the triggers back to an earlier revenue forecast. So some will kick in even before the Council has a proposed budget to work on.

UPDATE: Very shortly after I published this, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute published a post warning that the District could have to cut spending for next year unless policymakers can find alternative ways to fund “one-time” items in the current budget.

 

 


TANF Work First Doesn’t Work, New Study Confirms

December 3, 2015

The House Subcommittee on Human Resources is still holding hearings to provide a basis for the overdue overhaul of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. No issue has proved as controversial as the work activity requirements.

Progressive experts want them modified so that parents can readily engage in activities that will improve their employment prospects, e.g., by allowing states to count toward their required participation rates longer-term job-related education, high school enrollment and GED prep for adults and services to reduce personal barriers to work.

Others the subcommittee has heard from object to any such expansion. Robert Doar and colleagues at the American Enterprise Institute, for example, say they fear it will “shift the focus of TANF away from a work-first model.” Clearly a bad thing, since TANF “has been a success,” Doar claims elsewhere.

His view — and not his only — is that the program should aim to get parents into the workforce swiftly. No matter that the jobs they can get often pay little. They’ll develop more skills, plus a work history and so move up to higher positions.

A recently reported study of parents who left Maryland’s TANF program casts grave doubts on this scenario. It does so by tracking a sample of nearly 4,770 leavers for five years — longer than most prior studies.

Even first-year outcomes strongly suggest that a majority weren’t work ready, though that’s the intent of the work activity requirements — or if ready, not able to find steady work.

Only slightly more than one in three worked all four quarters — whether part time or full time the report doesn’t say. It does, however, tell us that only 18.5% earned $20,000 or more — enough, in other words, to boost a family of three over the very low poverty line.

More than one in four didn’t work at all. And of those who did, the highest percent — roughly one in three — earned no more than $5,000.

Steady employment — even by the researchers’ liberal standard — was relatively rare. By the fifth year, only about one in five had consistently worked either three or four quarters.

The percent that never worked barely shrunk. And in the fifth year, it outstripped those who worked all four quarters, making it the most common outcome then.

A similarly dismal earnings picture. True, the number earning more than $20,000 was 7% higher by the fifth year. But nearly 48% earned $5,000 or less, not counting those who had no earnings whatever.

Over the whole five year period, more leavers than not “remained mired in jobs” in which they never earned more than the equivalent of a half-time job at the minimum wage. Far, far less than the self-sufficiency TANF programs aim for.

And indeed, 58% of the leavers returned to Maryland’s program — this presumably because they’d left before they’d participated for the 60-month lifetime limit, which Maryland, like a majority of states, imposes. (Most of the rest cut families off sooner.)

On a local note, the District of Columbia’s TANF program adhered to a work-first approach until late 2011 — and took some considerable time after that to fully convert to more individually-tailored activity plans.

The District hadn’t even used such opportunities as federal rules allowed to permit a year of “education directly related to employment” at a community college or voc-tech school. Nor had it used these opportunities to meet needs for basic literacy or English as a Second Language education.

What this means is that the first round of families who’ll lose what remains of their benefits spent years in a program that prepared few, if any of the parents for jobs that pay enough — and for long enough — to even lift them out of official poverty.

We didn’t need the Maryland study to tell us this. Earlier followups have indicated something similar for leavers after the first few years to TANF — those the program’s enthusiasts always cite.

A fairly recent audit of the District’s own 60-month-plus parents found, among other things, that only 38% who’d received employment services got jobs that could have provided steady, full-time work.

Of all those who’d gotten jobs of any sort since early 2012, fewer than half had jobs of any sort in October 2014. And as my review of the findings noted, the fall-off starts before the second month.

These results skew toward the positive because the auditors looked only at the 40% or so of at-risk parents whom the Department of Human Services had assessed as work-ready.

Ready perhaps, but apparently unlikely to work steadily for wages that are anything like what they’d need to support themselves and their children.

And unlike the Maryland leavers, they won’t have a chance to recover the protections against dire poverty that TANF provides — unless the District concludes that establishing a rigid time limit was a short-sighted mistake.

 


Thankful I Live in DC

November 25, 2015

Like many of you, I suppose, I try to take some time before Thanksgiving Day to focus on what I have to be thankful for. In my case, a lot, even on this Thanksgiving, when I’ll have no one ministering to the turkey — my late husband Jesse’s traditional (and favorite) holiday task.

One thing I’m thankful for and recur to often as I browse policies that affect low-income people is the fact that I live in the District of Columbia.

As followers know, I gripe about policy choices our mayors and the DC Council make. Sometimes more than gripe.

I’m constantly reminded, however, of how relatively progressive the major choices generally are — and of how even current debates occur within a relatively progressive framework. A few examples.

Jobless Workers

The Council seems poised to increase unemployment insurance benefits for at least some jobless workers, as well as to enable some to get them for longer

A bill cosponsored by a majority of members would, among other things, increase the maximum weekly benefit — long stuck at $359 — to $430 and then adjust it annually so that it didn’t again lose purchasing power.

It would also enable recipients to work part time without losing as much of their benefits as they do now — another increase of sorts.

Meanwhile, nine states have cut UI benefits by reducing the maximum time jobless workers can receive them to fewer than the customary 26 weeks. Two states will now cut the lifeline at 12 weeks when their unemployment rates drop to 5-5.5%.

And five states have chosen not to ask for waivers of the highly-restrictive SNAP (food stamp program) eligibility maximum for able-bodied workers without dependents. One of them — Kansas — is among the states that cut eligibility weeks for UI benefits.

So ABAWDs who are jobless for as little as 16 weeks will have neither cash income nor a cash equivalent to feed themselves — unless they can get into a job training program.

Unlikely, since states don’t have to provide any training slots for them. And most don’t, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has again reported.

The District has not only preserved the waiver it’s entitled to. It’s done other things to extend SNAP benefits to as many residents as possible — and to make them as sufficient as seems possible, even to the extent of committing local funds to boost the minimal minimum.

Affordable Health Care

The District swiftly embraced the opportunities in the Affordable Care Act — both to expand its Medicaid program and to establish an online marketplace so that residents with incomes above the new maximum could purchase health insurance, in many cases subsidized.

And it promoted enrollment in a variety of ways — through advertising, partnerships with the local soccer team and largest drug store chain and funding for 35 divers organizations to support trained “assisters,” who help residents understand the ACA and navigate their way to a sign-up.

At the same time, it retained the locally-funded Healthcare Alliance so that low-income residents barred from Medicaid and the exchange — mainly undocumented immigrants — could get affordable health care too.

As a result, the District’s already low uninsured rate dropped to 5.3% last year — bested only by Massachusetts, which provided the model for the ACA.

Meanwhile, 20 states still refused to expand their Medicaid programs. And 13 of them passed laws to hobble the federally-funded navigators — one of the two types of “assisters” the District provides.

We see the results in the same Census health insurance report I linked to above. Highest uninsured rates in the non-expansion states — led by Texas, with a rate well over three times the District’s.

Not surprisingly, when Texas, among others, excludes all childless adults from its Medicaid program and covers only parents with incomes no greater than 15% of the federal poverty line — about $3,013 for a parent with two kids.

Family Planning Rights

The District would — if it could — use its own tax revenues to ensure that low-income women who live here can choose to end a pregnancy when they believe that’s best, a right they supposedly have under the Constitution.

The District can’t because Congress exercised its prerogative to meddle in the local budget in ways it can’t — and wouldn’t dare to — if the District were a state like any other.

Meanwhile, 24 states have cleverly (they think) found a way around the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, which made the Constitutional right operative.

They’re using their taxpayer dollars to defend laws that effectively deny the right by requiring clinics that provide abortions to meet wholly unnecessary standards — all very costly and at least two sometimes absolutely impossible to comply with.

Texas will defend its unusually expansive rules before the Supreme Court, using tax dollars women have perforce contributed. The governor makes no bones about the intent of the rules.

“The ideal world, ” he says, “is one without abortion. Until then, we will continue to pass laws to ensure that they are as rare as possible.” So much for the alleged concern for women’s health and safety.

Well-off women will, of course, still have abortions. They’ll travel to communities with clinics that have managed to meet the standards — or to states that haven’t enacted targeted regulations of abortion providers, so-called to produce the appropriate acronym, i.e., TRAP.

They’ll perhaps have abortions in hospitals, as well-off women with compassionate doctors sometimes did before Roe.

Meanwhile, hundreds of desperate women have already tried to-it-yourself abortions — at genuine risk to their health and safety. Who knows how many more have borne children they didn’t want and can’t care for? How many have instead done away with themselves?

Got my juices flowing here, when I should be thinking about turkey juices. But I am truly thankful that I’ve settled in the District. And I’m thankful for Jesse, without whom I probably wouldn’t have. But that’s another story.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 228 other followers