So I have spent roughly six years now as a budget analyst (and have now moved away from that to work on policy). If I could teach one lesson about government budgeting, it is this: You cannot close budget gaps by eliminating waste. I understand that it sounds good - that the public eats it up. But it just isn't true. The only way to close significant budget gaps is to cut services.
I did not like Obama's claims about paying for his programs by eliminating waste - by taking a scalpel to the budget. And I don't like that he is still making similar claims. I understand that is part of a larger effort, but it is part of a broader position that Obama is taking.
And yes, this means that I agree with Paul Krugman. It happens.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
At Last - Talking About Affordable Housing and Homelessness
I'm not sure who noticed, but for almost three years now, there have been two topics that I have not written about at all: affordable housing and homelessness. That would be particularly curious since during that time, those were the two policy areas I was working on at the NYC Independent Budget Office. Of course, the reason was that at that time I did not want to provide my political opinion at night on subject matters that during the day I was providing objective and non-partisan analysis (never opinions however). The reputation of the Independent Budget Office depended on people seeing us as non-partisan.
Now, let's be honest. Nobody thoughtful can really call themselves completely non-partisan. The policies we support are clearly guided by our own sense of morals and justice. At the same time though, I think that looking at my small body of work from the IBO, you would see no opinions and only conclusions that are supported by the data. So even though I will now reveal my opinions on these issues, there should be no doubt that the work carried out there was impartial and objective.
You might then wonder though why I feel empowered to talk about these issues now that I am working for the Speaker's Office. The answer is that although her positions are also based on analysis and understanding of the issues, her role is one where partisanship is expected. Also, it should be clear that any positions I take here are mine and that if you want to know what she thinks on these issues, you can write her a letter.
With all that aside now, let's get to the issues.
I'll start with homelessness. One of the most important developments in homelessness policy has been the "Housing First" model. The model is based on a few studies that show that a small number of chronically homeless individuals are using extreme amounts of city services. These individuals, that have been on the streets for many years, will spend time in shelters, jails, drug treatment facilities, mental health facilities and emergency rooms - and all in one year. Therefore, it is much cheaper for the government, and more humane also, to provide those people with housing that gives them the support they need.
The difference between previous models is that in the past, individuals were required to be sober and given strict curfews in order to be in shelter. What they have found however is that by housing these individuals first (and giving them support services), their substance abuse decreases and they are more likely to take medication they need. Many of the most chronically homeless have serious and persistent mental illnesses and/or substance abuse problems. Therefore, they need to be housed first to provide the stability needed to help deal with these problems instead of dealing with the problems (which is unlikely) as a condition of receiving housing.
I also cannot say enough about the right to shelter in New York City. Granted, homeless shelters can be dangerous and have some policies that deter usage. Shelter usage is a choice and some choose not to use them. Those issues should be looked at more systematically. However, I cannot comprehend a city government that allows a condition to exist where there are not enough beds for those that want them. The right to shelter should exist everywhere.
Now, what can I say about affordable housing? I think the work we are doing at the City Council is great and I don't have the energy to repeat it all. In general I'll say that I firmly believe that all people have a right to live in decent housing. Since the market cannot provide housing that is affordable to all people, government needs to provide subsidies.
The issues that are developing now around affordable housing include the foreclosure crisis in single-family homes, which will likely soon be followed by foreclosures in multifamily rental buildings. These buildings were purchased in the same environment as single family home mortgage pools - with unrealistic assumptions and very little capital. This is going to be a major issue that affects many renters - people who are not at fault for the reckless deals of their landlords.
I could also go on to talk about public housing, but I think I will save much of that for another time. In brief though, I think public housing can work, when it is well maintained and not isolated. New York City's model has worked because the housing is part of the city. However, public housing will always face funding issues, as the tenants living there lack the power that other groups lobbying for money (deserved or not) have. Bush and Congress during Bush's administration severely underfunded public housing. Let's hope Obama and this Congress do better.
Now, let's be honest. Nobody thoughtful can really call themselves completely non-partisan. The policies we support are clearly guided by our own sense of morals and justice. At the same time though, I think that looking at my small body of work from the IBO, you would see no opinions and only conclusions that are supported by the data. So even though I will now reveal my opinions on these issues, there should be no doubt that the work carried out there was impartial and objective.
You might then wonder though why I feel empowered to talk about these issues now that I am working for the Speaker's Office. The answer is that although her positions are also based on analysis and understanding of the issues, her role is one where partisanship is expected. Also, it should be clear that any positions I take here are mine and that if you want to know what she thinks on these issues, you can write her a letter.
With all that aside now, let's get to the issues.
I'll start with homelessness. One of the most important developments in homelessness policy has been the "Housing First" model. The model is based on a few studies that show that a small number of chronically homeless individuals are using extreme amounts of city services. These individuals, that have been on the streets for many years, will spend time in shelters, jails, drug treatment facilities, mental health facilities and emergency rooms - and all in one year. Therefore, it is much cheaper for the government, and more humane also, to provide those people with housing that gives them the support they need.
The difference between previous models is that in the past, individuals were required to be sober and given strict curfews in order to be in shelter. What they have found however is that by housing these individuals first (and giving them support services), their substance abuse decreases and they are more likely to take medication they need. Many of the most chronically homeless have serious and persistent mental illnesses and/or substance abuse problems. Therefore, they need to be housed first to provide the stability needed to help deal with these problems instead of dealing with the problems (which is unlikely) as a condition of receiving housing.
I also cannot say enough about the right to shelter in New York City. Granted, homeless shelters can be dangerous and have some policies that deter usage. Shelter usage is a choice and some choose not to use them. Those issues should be looked at more systematically. However, I cannot comprehend a city government that allows a condition to exist where there are not enough beds for those that want them. The right to shelter should exist everywhere.
Now, what can I say about affordable housing? I think the work we are doing at the City Council is great and I don't have the energy to repeat it all. In general I'll say that I firmly believe that all people have a right to live in decent housing. Since the market cannot provide housing that is affordable to all people, government needs to provide subsidies.
The issues that are developing now around affordable housing include the foreclosure crisis in single-family homes, which will likely soon be followed by foreclosures in multifamily rental buildings. These buildings were purchased in the same environment as single family home mortgage pools - with unrealistic assumptions and very little capital. This is going to be a major issue that affects many renters - people who are not at fault for the reckless deals of their landlords.
I could also go on to talk about public housing, but I think I will save much of that for another time. In brief though, I think public housing can work, when it is well maintained and not isolated. New York City's model has worked because the housing is part of the city. However, public housing will always face funding issues, as the tenants living there lack the power that other groups lobbying for money (deserved or not) have. Bush and Congress during Bush's administration severely underfunded public housing. Let's hope Obama and this Congress do better.
Kindergarten Education
Before I met my fiance, I completely supported standardized testing, even at early ages. Now, while I still think that in general it is useful to have broad measures to compare students and schools to each other, I have learned that these tests at an early age are misguided.
The argument is well-summed up here in this short article in the Times Sunday Magazine, but basically the point is that at young ages, kindergarten and first grade at least, kids really need lots of free play time. The time spent in dramatic play helps develop not only social skills, but also literacy skills as kids learn how to create compelling fictional stories.
I do think that diagnostic tests are necessary at young ages so we know which kids are falling behind so we can help them catch up before it is too late. What is important to determine then is when is too late. What age should kids be learning to read? I think there is a crazy pressure to get kids reading earlier and earlier without any thought as to whether that is good or necessary.
While I think it is important that NCLB put an emphasis on having standardized tests, the emphasis has gone too far. There is a belief that these tests should have much wider application than merely providing more information. The tests are being used for admission to schools, as a basis for teacher pay changes, and for school funding. They end up taking on a life of their own. The extent to which the tests are used at early ages are a good example of this.
We need to take a step back and rethink the tests and what they are trying to achieve. Do kids need to working on reading and math so early, or should they be engaging in dramatic play? If we want teacher pay to be flexible, maybe we should base it on performance reviews (as many jobs are). Those reviews can take test scores into account, but should not rely solely on them. Let's hope the debate will move forward about where tests are useful, and where they are not.
The argument is well-summed up here in this short article in the Times Sunday Magazine, but basically the point is that at young ages, kindergarten and first grade at least, kids really need lots of free play time. The time spent in dramatic play helps develop not only social skills, but also literacy skills as kids learn how to create compelling fictional stories.
I do think that diagnostic tests are necessary at young ages so we know which kids are falling behind so we can help them catch up before it is too late. What is important to determine then is when is too late. What age should kids be learning to read? I think there is a crazy pressure to get kids reading earlier and earlier without any thought as to whether that is good or necessary.
While I think it is important that NCLB put an emphasis on having standardized tests, the emphasis has gone too far. There is a belief that these tests should have much wider application than merely providing more information. The tests are being used for admission to schools, as a basis for teacher pay changes, and for school funding. They end up taking on a life of their own. The extent to which the tests are used at early ages are a good example of this.
We need to take a step back and rethink the tests and what they are trying to achieve. Do kids need to working on reading and math so early, or should they be engaging in dramatic play? If we want teacher pay to be flexible, maybe we should base it on performance reviews (as many jobs are). Those reviews can take test scores into account, but should not rely solely on them. Let's hope the debate will move forward about where tests are useful, and where they are not.
Dick Misses the Point
Torture remains in the news, and I think the debates we are finally having are healthy although they should have happened a long time ago. However, there is only one right answer - the obvious one: torture is wrong and a moral society should never practice it.
In order to justify what they did, former VP Dick Cheney has been saying recently that the methods worked, which therefore justifies their use.* If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, all interrogation techniques, whether "enhanced" or ultra-enhanced or downright evil should be employed if they garner results.
However, as a moral society, we don't believe that. Even if the methods could provide more information, we do not condone torture. Which is why Bush made up the phony name for the methods he condoned. So all of Dick Cheney's statements miss the point entirely. What matters is not their effectiveness, but whether the methods were cruel and inhumane treatment.
That answer to that argument is much more clear - it was torture. The methods we are talking about include throwing prisoners against a wall, handcuffing them to a pipe over their head to make them stand for days, and waterboarding. Throwing prisoners against a wall is no different than any other physical punishment. So if we do not condone punching someone in the stomach or face, then we should not condone this.
The handcuffs above the head is less obvious, until you consider what happens after long periods in this position. The body becomes weak and the person hangs from the handcuffs. Now, we would not actually hang a prisoner by the handcuffs, so allowing a procedure that results in that makes no sense.
Finally, waterboarding is no different to me than dunking someone's head under water or strangling them for the same amount of time. In fact, John McCain went so far to compare it to pulling the trigger of an unloaded gun against someone's head.
What is amazing is how the administration used tactics that were similar to ones that are obviously torture, hoping that the unfamiliarity of the procedure would prevent people from seeing what it really is. Further, they created new names for the procedures, knowing that they were not regular interrogation techniques, but also knowing that calling it torture would not fly. So they used the Orwellian phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" (in Israel they apparently used the term "moderate measure of physical pressure") when in the end, as everyone knows, it was torture.
And when it comes to torture, this quote (by the president of the Israeli Supreme Court when they were having similar debates, Aharon Barak) sums it up: "This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it."
*It will be interesting to see how the debate plays out about whether these methods did result in significant new information. I maintain though that torture doesn't make people tell the truth, but forces the person to say whatever will make the torture stop. Sometimes that is the truth but sometimes it is what they think the torturer wants to hear. If the prisoner doesn't know anything, they then have the incentive to make things up to get the torture to stop.
In order to justify what they did, former VP Dick Cheney has been saying recently that the methods worked, which therefore justifies their use.* If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, all interrogation techniques, whether "enhanced" or ultra-enhanced or downright evil should be employed if they garner results.
However, as a moral society, we don't believe that. Even if the methods could provide more information, we do not condone torture. Which is why Bush made up the phony name for the methods he condoned. So all of Dick Cheney's statements miss the point entirely. What matters is not their effectiveness, but whether the methods were cruel and inhumane treatment.
That answer to that argument is much more clear - it was torture. The methods we are talking about include throwing prisoners against a wall, handcuffing them to a pipe over their head to make them stand for days, and waterboarding. Throwing prisoners against a wall is no different than any other physical punishment. So if we do not condone punching someone in the stomach or face, then we should not condone this.
The handcuffs above the head is less obvious, until you consider what happens after long periods in this position. The body becomes weak and the person hangs from the handcuffs. Now, we would not actually hang a prisoner by the handcuffs, so allowing a procedure that results in that makes no sense.
Finally, waterboarding is no different to me than dunking someone's head under water or strangling them for the same amount of time. In fact, John McCain went so far to compare it to pulling the trigger of an unloaded gun against someone's head.
What is amazing is how the administration used tactics that were similar to ones that are obviously torture, hoping that the unfamiliarity of the procedure would prevent people from seeing what it really is. Further, they created new names for the procedures, knowing that they were not regular interrogation techniques, but also knowing that calling it torture would not fly. So they used the Orwellian phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" (in Israel they apparently used the term "moderate measure of physical pressure") when in the end, as everyone knows, it was torture.
And when it comes to torture, this quote (by the president of the Israeli Supreme Court when they were having similar debates, Aharon Barak) sums it up: "This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it."
*It will be interesting to see how the debate plays out about whether these methods did result in significant new information. I maintain though that torture doesn't make people tell the truth, but forces the person to say whatever will make the torture stop. Sometimes that is the truth but sometimes it is what they think the torturer wants to hear. If the prisoner doesn't know anything, they then have the incentive to make things up to get the torture to stop.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Universities Are Okay
This Opinion piece about the University system seems to be popular on the Times website, so I figured I would comment. I don't find the piece that compelling. The author seems to claim that because PhD dissertations have a tendency to be too narrowly focused and obscure, then we need to transform the whole system. I agree with what he says about dissertations. The pressure to produce something new and unique when so many topics have been covered and re-covered will lead to insane specialization. However, I do not see the same overspecialization with professors. My memory of college was that my professors were doing interesting research.
I also remember (despite underfunding by the UMass system) interesting classes that changed with the times to cover developing topics. And his point that colleges should be conducting interdisciplinary work suggests that this work isn't going on. My experience is that between the interdisciplinary work that does on at universities, along with the real-world focused work at think-tanks, and conferences sponsored by government or private groups leaves a situation that does not lack for interdisciplinary work and study.
I am not sure why this article got so much attention, but I imagine people will forget about it in a few days. The crises he imagines doesn't exist as far as I can see.
I also remember (despite underfunding by the UMass system) interesting classes that changed with the times to cover developing topics. And his point that colleges should be conducting interdisciplinary work suggests that this work isn't going on. My experience is that between the interdisciplinary work that does on at universities, along with the real-world focused work at think-tanks, and conferences sponsored by government or private groups leaves a situation that does not lack for interdisciplinary work and study.
I am not sure why this article got so much attention, but I imagine people will forget about it in a few days. The crises he imagines doesn't exist as far as I can see.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter Changes Parties!
Wow. This is crazy. But it definitely makes sense. He has long been a moderate Republican, and with the GOP moving to the right instead of center, it is no wonder he feels alienated.
Little known fact: When I was in graduate school we had a three week course, part of which consisted of a simulation where we all took on roles in the federal government. A female classmate from Azerbaijan was President Bush and a liberal friend of mine was VP Cheney, in case you were wondering. I was Senator Arlen Specter. This was in the Summer of 2002, so we were working on passing legislation regarding the developing War on Terror. It was good times.
Actually, someone basically changed parties in our simulation as well - although from the different side. At the time, Dems had a majority in the Senate (both real and in simulation). However, a person from the Cato Institute (played by another liberal friend of mine) convinced Senator Jay Rockefeller to vote with the GOP. We got all of our legislation through.
I had also had an agreement with senators Kennedy and Durbin to support my military tribunal bill. In the end they abstained because they couldn't vote against it (because of our agreement), but one of the liberal interest groups (ACLU I think) threatened them so they couldn't actually vote for it. It passed thanks to their abstention and Rockefeller's support.
You have to love the high drama of politics - whether it is simulated or real!
Little known fact: When I was in graduate school we had a three week course, part of which consisted of a simulation where we all took on roles in the federal government. A female classmate from Azerbaijan was President Bush and a liberal friend of mine was VP Cheney, in case you were wondering. I was Senator Arlen Specter. This was in the Summer of 2002, so we were working on passing legislation regarding the developing War on Terror. It was good times.
Actually, someone basically changed parties in our simulation as well - although from the different side. At the time, Dems had a majority in the Senate (both real and in simulation). However, a person from the Cato Institute (played by another liberal friend of mine) convinced Senator Jay Rockefeller to vote with the GOP. We got all of our legislation through.
I had also had an agreement with senators Kennedy and Durbin to support my military tribunal bill. In the end they abstained because they couldn't vote against it (because of our agreement), but one of the liberal interest groups (ACLU I think) threatened them so they couldn't actually vote for it. It passed thanks to their abstention and Rockefeller's support.
You have to love the high drama of politics - whether it is simulated or real!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)