Family of Four? L.A. County Will Give You a Four-Bedroom House on the Taxpayer Dime
When you give people more money than they can earn by working, what are you incentivizing them to do?
That’s the rhetorical question raised by this California Lawyer article about section 8 housing, Lancaster, and disparate impact lawsuits. The reporter quotes Lancaster vice mayor Ronald D. Smith, arguing (incredibly) that Section 8 subsidies are too low in Los Angeles County:
But Smith also makes a case that the formula used to set Section 8 benefit levels ignores differences in the region’s housing markets. In Los Angeles County, subsidies are calculated by blending fair-market rents throughout the jurisdiction, which covers all but 18 cities and all unincorporated areas. Currently, a family of four that qualifies for a two-bedroom housing voucher can receive up to $1,319 a month. In Lancaster, however, that’s enough to rent a four-bedroom house.
“What do you do when you create a fair-market [rental] rate that is 35 percent lower than it really should be?” Smith asks. “You create a situation where they’re coming here in droves.”
Smith is making precisely the opposite point I want to make. He is saying that figure is too low, driving undesirable Section 8 tenants into the cheaper-to-rent Lancaster area of L.A. County.
I say that figure is far too high.
The average subsidy given to Section 8 participants is based on rental rates throughout L.A. County? Including rentals in Beverly Hills, Bel-Air, Brentwood, Malibu, and Rancho Palos Verdes??
And that leads to a subsidy that can give a family of four a four-bedroom house???
Look: I feel for people who find themselves out of work through no fault of their own. But I also feel for people who are working, heading a family of four, and housing that family of four in a one-bedroom apartment or a studio. And I guarantee you: that happens all over L.A. County.
If you tell people who aren’t working that you’ll give them enough money to pay for a house with a bedroom for each member of a four-person family, you are creating incentives not to find work.
Now, responsible people who are involuntarily out of work may not respond to that incentive. They may continue to look for work.
But many others may not.
By the logic of this policy, we should calculate unemployment benefits by taking an average of the salaries of people who do work — including multi-million dollar salaries for CEOs — and give that amount to people out of work. It’s crazy public policy.
If you want to live in Brentwood or Bel-Air, you should have to work to earn enough money to live there. Including ritzy areas in the calculation is insanity. Providing four-bedroom houses to families of four on the taxpayer dime, when working people are confined to much smaller quarters, is insanity.
And yet this is the type of thing that causes our taxes to be high. This is the type of thing that causes budgets to be squeezed. Where we are told the only answer is to close parks and libraries and schools, or raise taxes.
That is not the only answer. The answer is to incentivize people who are getting government assistance to stop.
Here endeth the rant.
Patterico (feda6b) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:04 amSection 8 makes it very hard for your “up and coming” neighborhoods to ever actually get there
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:09 amBut . . . think of the CHILDREN!!!
Helen Lovejoy (a49703) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:17 am“California — crumbles into the sea . . .”
Icy (a49703) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:18 amthat man must be like the tallest mayor ever
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:30 am____________________________________________
He is saying that figure is too low, driving undesirable Section 8 tenants into the cheaper-to-rent Lancaster area of L.A. County.
I guess it could be worse. Lancaster’s mayor instead could be promoting higher rent subsidies because he believes they reflect a society that isn’t humane, generous, big-hearted, beautiful and sophisticated enough. Sort of like all the folks in France who believe that raising the retirement age in their country from 60 to 62 awhile back was not a humane, generous, big-hearted, beautiful and sophisticated thing to do.
Meantime, the brilliant minds in another part of California government, in Sacramento, have approved start of development of a super-expensive high-speed train. Because a lack of such transportation means we’re not humane, generous, big-hearted, beautiful and sophisticated enough.
Mark (f37fee) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:33 amSection 8 housing is overpriced because no landlord would accept it otherwise. As a landlord, you never know whether your new 1 1/2 the market rate tenant is not a crack addict who will cruise up and down your street selling sex for a $10.00 hit and will not infect the whole building with cockraches — both the six-legged and two-legged kind.
To the extent that it reduces slums and slum apartments, it is a good thing. Gansters have to travel longer distances to meet up.
nk (875f57) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:33 amI can name two recently solid middle class multi-ethnic suburbs with a healthy mix of working class families and retirees (the ones who built up the communities in the 60’s-70’s raised their kids, paid off their mortgages and never left). Since the assignment of section 8 housing in these 2 burbs the housing stock is lower both in value and condition, crime has escalated both in the categories of petty and major, the test scores in the schools has significantly been lowered and the costs of needed public services have skyrocketed without being accompanied with appropriate tax revenues. The economy has contributed but is not at the root of the decline in the living conditions and struggle in these two locations.
I hope there are some section 8 miracle communities and success stories out there somewhere and I would love to read about them if anyone has links. But from what I know and have observed, section 8 mostly looks like proof of the abject failure of yet another misguided and mis-administered government social experiment– for all of the reasons Patterico lists and more.
elissa (1fcacb) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:35 amOr you could build a high speed train to nowhere that you don’t have the funds to build or the ridership to justify. That could create some jobs.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:35 amyes it’s exactly like elissa says
Section 8 is a tax on the property values of everybody nearby
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:38 am9 daley, are you talking about the Chicago to Dubuque high speed rail project? You the one that will bring people wanting Section 8 vouchers to bring back to Chicago from Dubuque, to Dubuque.
The Elites are tired of seeing disabled ghetto cruisers on the side of the road on US 20.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:45 amI was going to denounce him, but then I read in the article that the usual cast of suspects already has.
Until we realize that poverty doesn’t cause crime — in fact, crime causes poverty — we will continue to ruin our cities.
Patricia (e1d89d) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:47 am______________________________________________
Since the assignment of section 8 housing in these 2 burbs the housing stock is lower both in value and condition, crime has escalated both in the categories of petty and major
I was speaking with a person not long ago about how more and more people from certain parts of LA began moving dozens of miles to the east in order to escape all the dysfunction (eg, lousy, rowdy schools) in the marginal parts of urban LA. But how they were encountering a growing set of similar problems in their new communities. She said she was glad she didn’t spend the time and money to do the same thing (btw, she’s black).
BTW, the city of San Bernardino is currently in the news for having to declare bankruptcy. Since I don’t know much about that part of southern California, I wasn’t sure what to think when someone on a forum (I think it was at LATimes.com) snarkily claimed that San Bernardino city was a part of the more conservative County of San Bernardino. Then some others replied about the demographics of that city, and how it’s staunchly liberal/Democrat, and I couldn’t help but go: And the sun is hot, and the South Pole is cold—-and certain people can have a ton of bricks fall on them (hello, city of Detroit!!) and they’ll still be as idiotically liberal as ever before.
Mark (f37fee) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:49 amMy wife and I rent two identical three bedroom, two bath town homes. Not quite “luxury” but highly sought after in our wonderful college town…two story, spacious, stucco/Spanish tile roof, 3 swimming pools, adjacent to Tempe Town Lake and Papago Park. One to a family with 3 kids, both parents working. The other to a perfectly healthy and capable single mom with two kids, on Section 8. For two years I have received a check from the city housing office. At first she was responsible for $40 of her rent..lwithin months she successfully qualified for,full rent. Her utilities also get paid. She received FA free public transportation voucher benefit. A church provided her with a car. I see her a lot, as she calls me for every little repair or imagined problem, and I always ask her how her job search is going, what job skills she has, how I might be able to help her find work, etc. She hems and haws about The Economy, shows no interest in any help I might provide in actually securing employment, and then moves the conversation to her eternal struggle with various case workers and government programs. As far as I can determine, she spends her day working the benefits system, getting her hair colored, and collecting Wonder Woman paraphernalia on EBay. But she keeps the place clean, and that city rent check is in the mail 5 days before the first every month.
The hard working couple sometimes has trouble making rent on time. Great people, but living paycheck to paycheck. The place is too small for the family…they lost their home and cant afford a storage unit for all their belongings. It’s hard to keep the place clean between the three kids and work hours.
As people, the working couple are top notch. As tenants, the Section 8 single mom wins out. The high and lax benefit levels of Section 8 doesn’t just incentivize unemployment
MostlyRight (4f90a6) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:51 amOops…hit post before finishing.
…Section 8 doesn’t just incentivize unemployment, but in our case incentivizes our small property investment business to seek out unemployed customers. As long as they aren’t slobs, the tax payer funded Section 8 cash flow stream paired with a tenant who knows they have a sweet deal going and never wants to leave is the lowest risk deal going for a landlord these days.
MostlyRight (4f90a6) — 7/13/2012 @ 8:59 amThere is a collective lack of incentive taking place. Not only tenants, but landlords as well. Landlords of Section 8 housing typically are not on the premises yet receive subsidies, thus have no real incentive to actually maintain properties. These in turn end up run down and dragging down the neighborhood. Landlords are often also reluctant to evict tenants, even for the most egregious lease violations lest they lose their subsidies, which subsequently opens a pathway for crime to take root by tenants who know no consequential action will occur.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/13/2012 @ 9:01 amOur one other experience renting through Section 8 was about 5 years ago. Another single mom with 2 kids. She spent about two days a week at our property and the other five living with her boyfriend in his Section 8 place. A beautiful, remodeled 2 story townhome with 3 bedrooms, a loft and 2 1/2 bathrooms, in a great safe neighborhood a few steps to the pool. The boyfriend’s place must have been nicer.
MostlyRight (4f90a6) — 7/13/2012 @ 9:08 amMostly Right,
You provide an interesting perspective. The community I travel to for work has a high number of Section 8 housing. As it’s increased over the years, the neighborhood (which was originally a nice, middle class housing tract) has been reduced to an inner-city rundown neighborhood with a lot out-of-work residents who seem to do not much of anything but hang out. The demise of the community is stunning. Section 8 has attracted less than desirable residents and the unfortunately, the original residents who moved to a very nice, middle class housing track, have seen nothing but diminishing returns.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/13/2012 @ 9:18 amWhy does a family of four need a four bedroom house? Don’t the single mother and her unemployed live-in boyfriend have to share a room anymore?
The Dana who can count (3e4784) — 7/13/2012 @ 9:22 amThe fourth bedroom probably makes a nice study
happyfeet (0845e7) — 7/13/2012 @ 9:25 amOne must have a space to right one’s memoirs
happyfeet (0845e7) — 7/13/2012 @ 9:28 amOne must have a space to right one’s memoirs
While you clearly meant “write” one’s memoirs, I think “right” one’s memoirs could work, too. It made me think that Obama did not have that 4th bedroom to use for that study to “right” his memoirs…
Dana (292dcf) — 7/13/2012 @ 9:33 amOk that joke didn’t work at all… I tried rite but it just looked like I missed the w
happyfeet (a12946) — 7/13/2012 @ 9:36 amIn related news, by Executive fiat, Obama appears to have gutted the Clinton welfare reforms.
JD (f4e1b6) — 7/13/2012 @ 9:41 amI do think it’s too high. When I lived in Lancaster (paying my own rent with money I earned) our 2 bedroom 2 bath was 1000. Now I don’t live in that hell hole anymore (too much crime) and the current city I live in 1000 rents you nothing. Not even a studio. I a single mom of 2 can’t even rent a 1 bedroom apartment, and section 8? Waiting list over 10 years long. (Not that I would use it but there was two months right after my divorce that I thought I would be homeless so went in for help. Luckily found a job pretty quick.)
TheIrrelevants88 (913460) — 7/13/2012 @ 9:45 amhere’s those charts Mr. Instapundit linked the other day about the welfare
time for some disability reform in particular looks like
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/13/2012 @ 9:50 amHis goal is *not* so that people can get a free home.
His goal is that we make sure work pays much better than not work.
There’s more to it, btw. These programs have to be paid for. The instability of Cali’s economy and the high cost of doing business there have taken away working opportunities.
When you found work, you didn’t need subsidized housing. Imagine if we reduced the benefit to the point where California was more stable, jobs came back, and people wanted to work?
Trying to solve these programs with enormous government handouts is counterproductive.
Dustin (73fead) — 7/13/2012 @ 9:58 amPatterico, look … I have great respect for you.
But do what I did more than a decade ago, and get the hell out of California. Its the largest insane asylum in the world. And the inmates are in charge.
SPQR (e534d0) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:01 amhere’s a for reals 4-bedroom home in Lancaster you can rent for $1195 (if you don’t wanna haggle)
No trees. Or grass really.
If you’re willing to give up the study though there’s this $1175 3-bedroom what actually has 300 more square feet or so.
Plus you get a tree! Still no grass though.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:02 amIf you tell people who aren’t working that you’ll give them enough money to pay for a house with a bedroom for each member of a four-person family, you are creating incentives not to find work.
It’s the high marginal tax rates (from the phasing out of the subsidy as income goes up ) plus the complications that ensue, plus possibly fear of loss of Medicaid, plus fear of losing the subsidy, because only a small percentage of the people who could get it have it – there is a waiting list – that creates the disincentive to find work.
Obamacare puts more people on Medicaid. This is one of the worst things about it.
The rent paid isn’t higher than an average rent. Now the rents may be somewhat lower because of the commuting time.
Now, responsible people who are involuntarily out of work may not respond to that incentive. They may continue to look for work.
If someone finds work rather soon, they’ll never make it to the top of the waiting list.
Providing four-bedroom houses to families of four on the taxpayer dime, when working people are confined to much smaller quarters, is insanity.
They are in much smaller quarters because of the commuting difficulties.
Sammy Finkelman (d11d69) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:09 amVA, FHA, HUD, FannieMae/FreddieMac. It’s been a while since housing hasn’t been subsidized. The builders and the lenders do good — and even when the lenders don’t do good, they get bailed out. The working taxpayers pay.
nk (875f57) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:10 am___________________________________________
In related news, by Executive fiat, Obama appears to have gutted the Clinton welfare reforms.
Oh, brother. President “Goddamn America” is having a field day. But we reap what we sow—eg, I saw a recent poll that indicated a good portion of the public agrees with various socio-economic policies associated with Obama.
Mark (f37fee) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:14 amTANF’s welfare reform requirement that able-bodied adults be required to work (or prove that their was a consistent effort made to look for work) has been gutted today, thus removing any remaining incentive to work or seek a job. At its core, there’s no daylight between the underlying philosophy of TANF and Section 8 housing. This administration loves its dependent loyalists.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:14 amConsidering the foreclosure rate in Lancaster, I’m surprised the rents are that high. Still, I’m not sure that the program is wrong: it seems an efficient use of money and distressed housing.
It’s also not as cheap as you think: summer electric bills in Lancaster are no joke. Lancaster is pretty sucko most of the time.
Good news: 4 bedroom house; bad news: 112 degrees at the back of beyond.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:21 amKevin, high foreclosure rates actually push rents up. The families displaced from the foreclosed houses must rent and the foreclosed houses themselves sit for awhile before being put back on the housing market, and once bought by RE investors those houses sit more months while being renovated. The foreclosure process thereby is keeping a large number of houses out of the market for months or even years.
SPQR (e534d0) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:23 am_______________________________________________
As tenants, the Section 8 single mom wins out.
And your experience is why people who aren’t necessarily of the left will on various occasions find their sympathies going to liberal politicians and liberal policies.
It’s very similar to the various huge insurance companies and their executives who, while not thrilled with Obamacare in general, slyly sympathize with any law that requires the populace (particularly younger people) to get insurance. IOW, a law that creates a base of built-in new customers ain’t gonna make certain well-heeled folks who are on the receiving end of such laws exactly wince and shudder.
Close on its heels, various cities in the LA area and throughout California are now requiring that grocery stores stop giving out free disposable plastic bags, on the basis that such a perk is bad for the environment. So shoppers now either have to bring their own bags, pay for paper-only bags, or carry everything out of the store like sort of a juggler. Since such laws will, in turn, reduce some of the basic operating costs for a store, while the customer may not be thrilled, the supermarket industry smiles over such government edicts.
Mark (f37fee) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:32 amCongratulations to Governor Brown, for an accomplishment some never thought possible: he made the Governator look good.
The Dana who moved out of California when he was seven years old (3e4784) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:35 amMr feet, the joke went flat when you assumed that they’d know the word memwaar.
The Dana who moved out of California when he was seven years old (3e4784) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:37 amBut do what I did more than a decade ago, and get the hell out of California. Its the largest insane asylum in the world. And the inmates are in charge.
Perhaps. I’ve thought about it too. But my family has been here since the 1800’s and I hate to leave it to the ass*oles. I just wish we could move them all to Lancaster or Nevada.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:39 ammy favorite checker says reusable bags are disgusting that people never wash them and people thrust them at her and she’s like get those filthy things out of my face I don’t wanna touch that
so when we lose our bags here soon I’m gonna make sure to always throw some reusable ones in the wash every time I do a load of laundry
either that or I’ll just pay for the paper bags I haven’t decided
Ralph’s tried to prepare people for the change by introducing paper bags with no handles.
That didn’t go over well, cause of how it’s a deeply stupid idea. Now all your nice Ralph’s have the bags with the handles back while the ghetto Ralph’s got sent all the handle-less ones they ordered
I think after we switch to where you have to pay for a paper bag, everyone will get handles, but I wouldn’t take that to the bank.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:39 amI’ve always been weak on execution Dana I’m more of an ideas guy
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:41 amSPQR, you assume a moderate neighborhood foreclosure rate, which isn’t the case in places like Lancaster where the home values have fallen MUCH further than the average in a state that has a no-recourse purchase-money mortgage rule.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:42 amhappy, they say that the store can’t give you “single-use” plastic bags, but I don’t think they’ve said you cannot reuse them yourself. Which would mean they weren’t “single-use” in all but the legal sense. I have several thousand.
I also plan on getting folks outside stores to hand out “Defeat Councilman xxx” plastic bags before the 2013 city election.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:47 amKevin, I assume nothing of the sort. The problem of foreclosed inventory sitting out of the market is worse some place than others, but exists nationally.
SPQR (e534d0) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:48 am___________________________________________
my favorite checker says reusable bags are disgusting
I dropped by a grocery store in LA several days ago, unaware of the no-free-bag policy they now have to follow. It wasn’t a problem for me because I bought only a small item. But two shoppers in front of me didn’t want to buy a bag and ended up carrying their stuff out the door like, as I described previously, jugglers.
Welcome to the wonderful times we live in. Welcome to wonderful, beautiful, progressive California. Coming to a store or theater near you. And by that I mean, as one example, Spain recently upped its sales tax to over (drum roll, please) 20 percent! And the current government of Spain is the non-Socialist one that was recently voted in after the ultra-liberals were voted out.
Liberalism (aka as a severe lack of common sense) is like a creeping disease, touching so many people, so many places, so many lives.
Mark (f37fee) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:51 amoh – so you mean I can save plastic bags and then just re-use them? Or order a roll (sheaf?) of plastic bags off the internet even
good thinking!
That feels better than paying for paper bags or having to deal with re-usable ones that just clutter up your car and get filthy if you don’t wash them
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:52 amAnd Section 8 rentals in tracts that are mostly vacant is one way to get them back into that market, given the lack of curb appeal of broken glass and tumbleweeds.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:56 amMight as well just buy it for them so the only subsidy they need is the property tax.
What a joke.
Just sayin' (06d884) — 7/13/2012 @ 10:57 amhappy, I’m sure the bluenoses (greennoses?) will put a stop to it somehow. Criminalize possession of a plastic bag in a grocery store or something.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/13/2012 @ 11:00 amI was just thinking that Mr. Kevin – well, I was thinking if that re-using plastic bags thing catches on then maybe there’ll be some savvy restaurants what start styling their take-out bags to be suitable for that purpose
and that would be something our overlords could NOT abide
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/13/2012 @ 11:03 amMore likely they’ll put pressure on Mr Ralph to refuse to fill plastic bags.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/13/2012 @ 11:09 am“It’s very similar to the various huge insurance companies and their executives who, while not thrilled with Obamacare in general, slyly sympathize with any law that requires the populace (particularly younger people) to get insurance.”
Mark – From experience, I’m pretty sure not many executives of huge insurance companies slyly welcomed another and new layer of government regulation which now specified how much of each premium dollar they had to pay out in claims each year regardless of other expenses, what specific items of coverage they had to provide, including those covered for free, limitations on differential pricing for age, health and gender, and so on, but that’s just me. Slyly agreeing to stay quiet about a bill while there is a gun to your head smacks more of an offer you can’t refuse. Just look at the number of insurance companies deciding to exit the field.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2012 @ 11:15 amI think that to avoid the bag ban aggravation more and more people are going to order non-perishable grocery and household items from Amazon, etc. And, as I believe I mentioned on this site several months ago, the plastics and cardboards and wrappings that are used for covering delivered items are far greater than the little plastic bags that California is banning. So Cali retailers lose revenue and jobs will be lost. Plus the state is losing sales tax, too.
Once again, most excellent long term thinking is being demonstrated by the nanny overlords. Winning!!
elissa (1fcacb) — 7/13/2012 @ 11:21 am“9 daley, are you talking about the Chicago to Dubuque high speed rail project?”
PCD – No, I was referring to the California project that I thought Governor Moonbeam had given up on because of the environmental approval not being available before federal government funds were taken back, but which the CA State Senate just approved.
I am not familiar with the Chicago-DuBuque plan. I like DuBuque. I’m sure there is incredible passenger demand!
I did hear a presentation from a Midwest policy think tank on hub and spoke high speed rail about four months ago that was actually more persuasive than I was expecting.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2012 @ 11:23 am“oh – so you mean I can save plastic bags and then just re-use them? Or order a roll (sheaf?) of plastic bags off the internet even”
Mr. Feets – Plastic grocery bags are very useful for dog sh*t. If you have them, you don’t have to purchase other bags for that purpose. I wish more people around me actually used some sort of bag.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2012 @ 11:27 amsomeday archaeologists are gonna scratch their heads over all the individually-wrapped dog poop they excavate
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/13/2012 @ 11:30 amPlastic grocery bags are very useful for dog sh*t.
The LA City Council must go through a lot, then. The bull-kind is larger.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/13/2012 @ 11:30 am_____________________________________________
Slyly agreeing to stay quiet about a bill while there is a gun to your head smacks more of an offer you can’t refuse.
daley, I don’t disagree. But of the various stipulations in the mess that is Obamacare, the one that was the least bothersome — or even most appropriate — to the insurance industry was a mandate that prods people into buying health insurance. I’d imagine just about any business owner out there, even the libertarian ones, would relish any change in the economy that directs more customers their way.
The observations in the posts of MostlyRight above, where he admits that Section-8 tenants have been beneficial to his bottom line, is merely a variation of what I’m talking about. Stretch out such situations to a greater degree, and you end up with what’s known as “crony capitalism.”
Mark (f37fee) — 7/13/2012 @ 11:36 amCA high-speed rail: The first stage will go from Bakersfield to Madera, 130 miles apart. Something wrong with CA-99? $3.3 billion that they could have given to me.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/13/2012 @ 11:37 am_____________________________________________
Something wrong with CA-99? $3.3 billion that they could have given to me.
Well, at least California government is swimming in money.
Given the absurdity and idiocy of the various ongoing news stories and controversies — locally, nationally and internationally — it would be impossible to make this crap up. It’s like a perfect storm, a perfect gathering of the dumbness of liberalism and other forms of loony politics (eg, Islamo-lunacy).
Mark (f37fee) — 7/13/2012 @ 11:43 am“daley, I don’t disagree. But of the various stipulations in the mess that is Obamacare, the one that was the least bothersome — or even most appropriate — to the insurance industry was a mandate that prods people into buying health insurance.”
Mark – The insurance industry would have screamed to high heaven about community rating and no preexisting conditions without a mandate. So what. My point is, does any sane business welcome in additional layers of government regulation with the restrictions I described above if they are not being coerced?
Think about that seriously. Health insurance was not a particularly high margin part of industry to begin with.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2012 @ 12:00 pm@daley–
elissa (1fcacb) — 7/13/2012 @ 12:20 pmI think that the biggest mistake Conservatives and Republicans and Libertarians made during the run up to the Obama healtcare mess was allowing it to be about “insurance” rather than demanding that the discussion be about about doctors, patients, lawyers, pricing, and the actual direct practice of responsible medicine. I suspect some on the right were concerned that veering too far away from private insurance could lead into the land of single payer–a reasonable concern–but more expensive mandated insurance was not, and still is not, the answer to needed medical reform and cost reduction.
We’re refinancing, if not at the bottom pretty close, an knocking a few hundred off the payment.
Swiss and German two year bills now negative. Yes, people are paying to stash their money some place other than a coffee can in the back yard.
Make your moves now, time is short, a few months at most. The market went up almost 200 today.
Sell it all.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/13/2012 @ 12:26 pmAs a CA resident, I often wonder: what is the straw that will break this camel’s back and make me leave? My new dishwasher and range are pure crap, thanks to gubmint energy requirements. They are our Yugos.
I think it’s a plastic bag ban. If that spreads to where I live, the For Sale sign is going up. I’ll give Park City a try.
Patricia (e1d89d) — 7/13/2012 @ 12:30 pm63. “Sell it all.”
Caveat: Dr. Faber says sticking your money in a stock that will be around after the RESET is better than gold.
Who will tell us what that might be? No clue.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/13/2012 @ 12:36 pmanything involving oil production is a good bet I think
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/13/2012 @ 12:38 pmeven the re-usable grocery bags are usually made out of oil you know
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/13/2012 @ 12:39 pmRefi to 3.4% and switched to 20 from 30 year, saved a bunch.
JD (f4e1b6) — 7/13/2012 @ 12:48 pmIn the process of refi’ing the house and three rental properties as well. If you’re over 4%, get it done.
On the issue Mark and daleyrocks are discussing above…the health insurance and the health care markets are already less free market businesses than for-profit government agencies. Medicare, Medicaid and various state and local programs provide a huge slice of their revenue stream, and decades of regulation have turned health care industry business plans from viewing patient services as revenue sources to taxes/government plans and a few large insurance groups in each state. My wife is in management at one of the country’s largest children’s hospitals, and was dismayed the other day after a meeting with the C.E.O. where he encouraged everyone to vote for any politician with a platform for higher taxes and are pro-ObamaCare. His business plan seems composed of revenue through charitable giving (tug the heart strings “for the children”) and maximize government revenues. Then, profit by providing a level of care commensurate with that revenue. If everyone is equally regulated, small health companies won’t be able to compete. They don’t have to worry about competing by superior reputation or patient care or innovation…just by being more capable of navigating red tape and regulation and having the power to negotiate large contracts with government or insurance funding sources.
It does become a kind of false capitalism…a blend of fascism and socialism and often infected with crony capitalism. Private, for profit companies exist but in name only…none of their actions are free and private. They are tightly regulated…read controlled…and financial success is tied to some form of benefit or incentive or program, or failure some penalty or tax. The political part of me cringes at every City of Tempe Section 8 Housing check that arrives at the end of each month, but the business side of me loves its dependable arrival and low risk (for now) of bouncing. My wife, a long time therapist who entered health care to care for people…and most of the doctors she works with, hate ObamaCare. But the money people in top management and the Board of Directors seem to love the idea of collecting a guaranteed stream of revenue on one side of the balance sheet.
MostlyRight (4f90a6) — 7/13/2012 @ 1:28 pmDOOOOOOOOOODDD!!!!
GEEZ, MAN, don’t GIVE the liberal IDIOTS any IDEAS!!!
This sounds like a perfect recipe for “social justice“
They’re doing enough insane things as it is… lets’ not give them any Bright Ideas.
Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master and CRIS Diagnostic Expert (8e2a3d) — 7/13/2012 @ 2:01 pm“I think that the biggest mistake Conservatives and Republicans and Libertarians made during the run up to the Obama healtcare mess was allowing it to be about “insurance””
elissa – I agree, but I’m not sure “allowed” is exactly the right choice of words with all the demagoguery going on at the time. You had big publicity over the practice of insurance companies rescinding policies for incomplete or untruthful information by provided policyholders, which, when the information was actually compiled by state insurance commissioners did result in some refunds, but was of course not as bad as the original demagoguery.
The leftist meme of the day which Mark picked up above was that health insurance companies were actually glad to have an additional guaranteed source of premium income. It did not matter whether they made money on it, the old lose a little on each policy but make it up on volume analogy, what really counted was that crazy new premium volume.
I suggest a thought experiment. If something like Obamacare was really such a boon to the for profit health insurance industry, why haven’t they been lobbying or promoting that type of plan for years?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2012 @ 2:07 pmalways remember
Colonel Haiku (f48939) — 7/13/2012 @ 2:08 pmor is it never forget?
buy low sell hi y’all
“My wife is in management at one of the country’s largest children’s hospitals, and was dismayed the other day after a meeting with the C.E.O. where he encouraged everyone to vote for any politician with a platform for higher taxes and are pro-ObamaCare. His business plan seems composed of revenue through charitable giving (tug the heart strings “for the children”) and maximize government revenues. Then, profit by providing a level of care commensurate with that revenue.”
MostlyRight – The CEO has to make sure his employees are properly trained to
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2012 @ 2:14 pmupcoderecord procedures to maximize reimbursement without running afoul of government guidelines.teh children are sure getting a lot of stuff done for them. No wonder they aren’t taking their education very seriously.
Colonel Haiku (f48939) — 7/13/2012 @ 2:17 pmI’ve been to Lancaster and you couldn’t pay me enough to live there.
Colonel Haiku (f48939) — 7/13/2012 @ 2:18 pmwikipedia says Lancaster is listed by U.S. News & World Report as one of the best places to retire in the U.S.
I had no idea things had gotten so bad out there.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/13/2012 @ 2:29 pmwikipedia says Lancaster is listed by U.S. News & World Report as one of the best places to retire in the U.S.
Cheapest in SoCal… maybe.
Colonel Haiku (f48939) — 7/13/2012 @ 3:20 pm“teh children are sure getting a lot of stuff done for them. No wonder they aren’t taking their education very seriously.”
Colonel – As Obama says, its all about the messaging, not the policy. Just like in Cool Hand Luke and the failure to communicate. Paul Newman just does not suitably appreciate all the great things Strother Martin is doing for him.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2012 @ 3:21 pmOff topic- I think somebody else mentioned it in a comment-
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/13/2012 @ 4:03 pmSometime this week the emperor made an executive order to ignore all of the work-rules in the 1996 welfare reform act…even though the act itself explicitly says they can’t do that (so I hear anyway)
“Generalissimo” Duane on hewitt puts forth the idea that this move will have an effect to…decrease the unemployment rate as more people quit looking for work and drop out of the numbers
everyone who thinks the one would never do that raise a hand…
I don’t see any hands…
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/13/2012 @ 2:07 pm
If Obamacare was really such a boon to the for profit health insurance industry, why haven’t they been lobbying or promoting that type of plan for years?
Obamacare both taketh and giveth away and even they make a net profit from the changes you couldn’t lobby from scratch for that.
What the hospitals want is the Medicaid expansion, and they tolerated some reimbursement cuts. Prices will be less rational than before.
Sammy Finkelman (8aae3e) — 7/13/2012 @ 4:16 pmI can’t imagine anyone in healthcare wanting “medicaid expansion” over an improving economy and more people working.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/13/2012 @ 4:22 pmYou’re probably correct Doc, from the perspective of a true “provider”; ie, doctors, nurses, therapists, etc.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/13/2012 @ 4:28 pmBut, the healthcare bureaucrats see any expansion as a job-security provision.
All I know is that in the Philly area many/most(?) of the hospitals that had a higher than average percentage of Medicaid patients are no longer in business. In my experience, FWIW, specialist doctors who have a thriving practice often see medicaid patients for free as they don’t think the time and hassle for their staff to do the billing is worth it.
Any healthcare bureaucrat who thinks medicaid expansion is a good thing is being shortsighted, IMO.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 7/13/2012 @ 4:40 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sXIpeSHBWUU
Colonel Haiku (f48939) — 7/13/2012 @ 4:40 pmHate when that happens!!!
Colonel Haiku (f48939) — 7/13/2012 @ 4:41 pmI think the only way for to get people to move out of Section 8 houses is to make them kinda like hovels. You know – like poor people live in. Who wants to live in a hovel? Nobody! This would be a good source of motivation I think.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/13/2012 @ 6:59 pm“Obamacare both taketh and giveth away and even they make a net profit from the changes you couldn’t lobby from scratch for that.”
Sammy – I have no idea what the above means relative to my comment on the insurance industry lobbying for a plan such as Obamacare because they would make more money under such a scheme according to some theories.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/13/2012 @ 7:12 pmI think the only way for to get people to move out of Section 8 houses is to make them kinda like hovels.
It’s unfortunate, but many of the people who live in section 8 housing aren’t the most fastidious, or respectful of other’s property. If this housing is new or relatively new, they’ll have it looking uninhabitable in no time.
Colonel Haiku (f48939) — 7/13/2012 @ 7:37 pmoh. Ok I’ll get to work on a new theory.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/13/2012 @ 7:40 pmmaybe if we electrified the floors?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/13/2012 @ 7:40 pmoh my goodness on a hunch I googled that concept – sure enough it’s been tried
why do some people always have to take things to such extremes?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/13/2012 @ 7:43 pmsweet mother of dirty socialist propaganda National Soros Radio is effing shameless
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/14/2012 @ 6:27 ambobby orr!
pdbuttons (1ad69e) — 7/14/2012 @ 6:37 amthat’s a very good way to start the day I think
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/14/2012 @ 6:40 am_____________________________________________
It does become a kind of false capitalism…a blend of fascism and socialism and often infected with crony capitalism.
Mostlyright, my original focus (and interest) was on your experience with Section 8 tenants, and how you therefore (and this is not meant to be a snub at all) have been lulled into a bit of contentment with the way such things have turned out. It’s merely a variation of the way that the enactment of Social Security decades ago (ie, the government’s requiring that a taxpayer take a portion of his or her paycheck each month and allow Uncle Sam to be a caretaker of it) was more of a hot-button topic in the past, while today (and regrettably) it’s about as controversial as the recommendation that one brush his or her teeth in order to avoid cavities.
My interest about political bias (ie, of left, right and center) is the way it is affected by people’s self-interest and, in particular, their various shades of greed. That is the point I was trying to get across, and, at the same time, I don’t disagree with daleyrocks one iota—but I do hope he isn’t being overly generous in assuming many people within the insurance industry perceive that when it comes to Obamacare, the bad far outweighs the good.
But, again, I don’t think any of us are not influenced by the dynamic of “what’s in it for me?!” This is the main reason that Greece is Greece, Argentina is Argentina, Detroit, Michigan is Detroit, Michigan, or (to cite happyfeet’s post #92) France is France.
Lazy, greedy, foolish liberalism can be a very powerful lure to quite a few people (ie, saps and suckers).
Mark (31de87) — 7/14/2012 @ 7:40 am“I don’t disagree with daleyrocks one iota—but I do hope he isn’t being overly generous in assuming many people within the insurance industry perceive that when it comes to Obamacare, the bad far outweighs the good.”
Mark – That’s fine, I just have trouble understanding what you see as the “good” part.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/14/2012 @ 8:26 am________________________________________________
I just have trouble understanding what you see as the “good” part.
I was focusing on how a portion of the insurance industry will not be exactly unhappy about a government edict that prods more and more people to look into buying — and who certainly end up purchasing — health insurance. In effect, it’s a form of crony capitalism.
Mark (31de87) — 7/14/2012 @ 9:36 amMark, I agree with your comparison of Section 8 to other liberal policies which “lull” into contentment. In my initial post my intent was to provide our personal example of how it happens even when the business owner (or Social Security recipient) is politically conservative. On the Right, we chide those on the Left to voluntarily pay more taxes if this is what they want…they never do because of self-interest. Similarly, those on the Right politically won’t voluntarily give up the benefits provided by liberal policies. My otherwise Conservative firefighter cousin became quite the Scott Walker hater due to self interest. My Conservative father accepts a generous disability check and V.A. coverage for his time in Vietnam, though he will tell you he doesn’t think his time there justifies the benefits. The Left enjoys calling the Right greedy and self-interested…but they buy votes using self-interest of individuals in massive voting blocks. I believe most individuals are at base politically Conservative, but are then lulled by self-interest towards Liberal promises of “stuff”. Liberals are surprised people vote against their self-interest (greed)…read “What’s Wrong With Kansas”.
Daleyrocks…I don’t know if you are in business or not, but your inability to see where an industry could find “good” in increased regulation seems a bit ideological. In a theoretical fair free market, regulation and law are still needed to keep that market free and fair. Reality is this free and fair market doesn’t exist, and all industries are influenced by regulation and law that go far beyond protecting free markets. The larger the industry (where the money is), the more power to protect interests and control the outcomes. See banking, health care, energy. In these industries, business plans aren’t so simple as “see a need, provide a product or service better than the other guy”. In this free market style business plan, you have to work hard to innovate, provide superior customer service, market, and continually change to attract and then keep customers. Much easier to have a business plan where customers are mandated by law or penalty to use you, and competitors are barred from entering the market to compete with you. This is what the insurance companies saw in ObamaCare.
MostlyRight (4f90a6) — 7/14/2012 @ 9:51 amBy the way, I know several small real estate investors whose business plans are to use government loans and grants to buy government owned real estate and then rent to only Section 8 tenants. They specialize in navigating the system and establishing relationships with the local city housing offices. They all seem to be doing very well.
MostlyRight (4f90a6) — 7/14/2012 @ 9:56 am“I was focusing on how a portion of the insurance industry will not be exactly unhappy about a government edict that prods more and more people to look into buying — and who certainly end up purchasing — health insurance. In effect, it’s a form of crony capitalism.”
Mark – Is the part, the crony part, the portion of people with preexisting conditions so severe the insurance industry couldn’t price a policy high enough to cover their risk and are now forced to accept at the same price as other customers or healthier people who didn’t want to shell out for health insurance anyway? Or maybe the cronyism is having limits on their “gross profits” forced on them by fiat. I don’t see being forced to become the equivalent of a public utility as a good thing.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/14/2012 @ 10:05 am______________________________________________
I don’t see being forced to become the equivalent of a public utility as a good thing.
Most certainly. But when we’re dealing with humans, we’re also therefore dealing with the idiosyncrasies of human nature. So what is logical to you (or anyone else who has more than an ounce of common sense) may go right over the head of others, even those who should know better.
What astonishes (if not also disgusts) the hell out of me are fools like the CEO who MostlyRight cited in his earlier post:
Meanwhile, try to figure out the political and ideological dividing lines illustrated by the following report. Keep in mind that the government that’s pulling the stunt described below is the supposedly non-leftist, non-Socialist one, or the one that was voted in after the previous ultra-liberal one was voted out.
Then ponder how that country in general is, as is typical of Europe in general, already starting off from square one as quite liberal. So its version of the Hollywood community (which will be most negatively impacted by the taxes below) undoubtedly is no less of the left than the one here in the US.
There are a lot of ironies in these type of stories, including the odd bedfellows of tax-and-spend liberals joining together with those who are not necessarily truly of the right, but who are also not flat-out, Obama-loving, Pelosi-loving type leftists. Or an unholy alliance of disparate, even sometimes strongly clashing, ideologies.
In the US, that was on full display back in the 1930s, when Republican Herbert Hoover in the 1930s initiated the left-leaning lunacy that Roosevelt took to the next level.
Mark (31de87) — 7/14/2012 @ 10:32 am“Daleyrocks…I don’t know if you are in business or not, but your inability to see where an industry could find “good” in increased regulation seems a bit ideological. In a theoretical fair free market, regulation and law are still needed to keep that market free and fair.”
MostlyRight and Mark – I think you are both completely missing the point. Insurance companies are already heavily regulated in their states of domicile. Obamacare added a new layer of federal regulation with new provisions over and above the existing state regulations. I’m of the opinion that federal regulation of state markets is usually not an improvement of state regulation, but YMMV.
The reason for the individual mandate was both ideological and practical. It allowed Obama to tout providing universal coverage to the American people. He wrecked a system providing coverage to 90% of Americans to solve the problems of 10%. WINNING!
The practical side is by offering community rating an open enrollment for anybody wishing to purchase health insurance you get a phenomenon called adverse selection. Unhealthy people jump at the opportunity while healthy people may continue to decide to avoid purchasing the product. The health insurance industry loses money. Analysts outside the insurance industry on both the left and right understand the issue and its results have been on display in several states which have experimented with health insurance reform. Premiums skyrocket and carriers leave the market. It is nothing new. The mandate is a way to force healthy people into the market to subsidize the coverage of the unhealthy.
There were plenty of alternatives to Obamacare suggested that did not involve additional layers and burdens of regulation on the insurance industry that would have made more sense. But as with much of this Administration’s policy, if you don’t have a seat at the table, you become the meal. In my view, once the direction of Obamacare became clear, the effort of the health insurance industry became one of damage mitigation.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/14/2012 @ 10:44 am________________________________________
the effort of the health insurance industry became one of damage mitigation.
You might also say that industry started to suffer from the effects of what’s known as the “Stockholm Syndrome,” or where the victims of a kidnapping (in this case, the healthcare industry—particularly the portion involved in insurance) started to sympathize with the kidnapper (ie, Obama).
I was talking to a dyed-in-the-wool about Obamacare the other day and asked her whether more and more taxpayers, specifically in their response to Obamacare’s new mandate (or tax), should cheat on their taxes. She looked sheepish and said no. And then I said, well, why can’t we emulate the behavior of Obama’s wonderful Secretary of the Treasury, who also therefore occupies the title of head of the IRS, and is known for being a tax cheat?
We live in the Age of Liberal Lunacy.
Mark (31de87) — 7/14/2012 @ 11:02 am“You might also say that industry started to suffer from the effects of what’s known as the “Stockholm Syndrome,” or where the victims of a kidnapping (in this case, the healthcare industry—particularly the portion involved in insurance) started to sympathize with the kidnapper (ie, Obama).”
Mark – No, I wouldn’t.
When an insurance company submitted a set of rate increases for approval in California or Missouri only to have Secretary Sebelius, President Obama or some flunky publicly land on them for being unconscionable rapists of the public, such publicity tends to make the industry a little gun shy about public criticism of the program.
A good example of damage mitigation was shooting down the public option, which represented unfair competition with the private sector.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/14/2012 @ 11:13 am___________________________________________
No, I wouldn’t… such publicity tends to make the industry a little gun shy
Okay, then maybe they’re analogous to sufferers of the “abused wife” syndrome.
Mark (31de87) — 7/14/2012 @ 11:27 am“Okay, then maybe they’re analogous to sufferers of the “abused wife” syndrome.”
Mark – A lot of the arguing was and is done through trade associations to take the focus off individual companies. If you visit ahip.org which is the website for American Health Insurance Plans and click on the Issues tab you will see a list of papers and releases related to the Affordable Care Act. They hardly constitute ringing endorsements.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/14/2012 @ 11:57 amFrom Glenn Reynolds:
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/15/2012 @ 10:00 amYup. That’s kali in a nutshell.
Kali is an asylum run by the keepers entirely for the benefit of the keepers. But then, the keepers aren’t the ones who are crazy. Nor for that matter are the people they pay to vote for them by promising them more free stuff that other people will have to pay for.
There’s a hip-hop singer who goes by the name Chapter. She has a song called “It’s free, swipe your EBT!” I won’t link to it, you can google it if you like but it’s pretty profane. It’s also awesome. Essentially she’s making fun about just how crazy Kali is with the free bennies. Basically she’s singing about how Kali pays you not to work and now everything from fast food places to liquor stores will even take your EBT card.
Right up front, at the beginning of her video, she tells you that her song is a message to some welfare queen so she can spend it on a bottle of expensive tequila.
Of course, it’s not racist for her to say that because she’s black. Of course, it’s probably racist of me to quote her. Or to notice she’s black. It’s probably racist of me to like her video. Or even be aware it exists.
The last thing the criminal syndicate that is the Kali democratic party is going to do is cut back on the amount of free stuff they give away to their core constituency groups.
The taxpayer on the other hand can go without parks and libraries. And police and other emergency services. Oakland made the national news when they announced a list of something like 80 crimes they won’t respond to. If you’re a victim of one of the crimes on the list you can fill out an on-line form and submit it to whatever bureaucratic black hole these forms reporting crimes that they can’t be bothered to investigate gets filed in.
The crazy ones are the people who put up with this. It’s not a thick playbook these thieves are using. They’ve only got a couple of tricks, and they’ve used all of them a billion times.
One perennial favorite is to hit up the taxpayers for an increase in sales taxes to buy police and firefighters communication equipment so they can talk to each other as well as other “public safety” equipment.
Then they use the money to build something like a LGBT teen center. Which they claim is somehow related to “public safety.” Then the next time there’s a cataclysmic wildfire or earthquake and the first-responders can’t communicate across jurisdictions, they hit the people of kali up for another sales tax increase.
The resulting money they then spend on something else. Wash, rinse, repeat.
If they ever bought the “public safety” equipment they’d be out of Schlitz. Not fixing the problem is like an ATM to them. Yet people fall for it every time.
Speaking of falling for it every time, you people in Kali must have a death wish if you think electing Gov. Moonbeam again made anything remotely resembling sense. He was a disaster the first time around.
Seriously, he signed into law a bill that empowered public employee unions to conduct collective bargaining. Which economists correctly predicted would be the beginning of the end for fiscal sanity in the state. They were right. The rest of the country is electing governors who promise to put a stake through the heart of these vampires. Kali is electing a governor who is promising them more blood. Squeezed from the rapidly dwindling tax base that they’re sucking dry.
Not like Jerry Brown isn’t one of them. I lost track; how many secret public pensions is he collecting and refusing to report?
Mitt Romney’s personal bank accounts are somehow supposed to be the public’s business. But Moonbeam’s public pensions aren’t.
Crazy, indeed.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/16/2012 @ 11:49 amBenjamin Franklin, The London Chronicle, November 29, 1766, on the utter counter-productive stupidity of these sorts of programs:
People don’t work to pay the rent if they know other idiots will give them a place to live.
Liberals and socialists; making the problem worse since before there was a United States of America.
Steve57 (65d29f) — 7/17/2012 @ 8:54 am