A View From D. C.

The Real Battle Begins

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:31:00 +0000

Living through the dog days of August 2011 entails more than enduring heat and humidity. This is the period of congressional recess where advocates have a full month to lobby Members of Congress on issues of importance to them.

With the focus on the Super Committee’s mandate to tackle entitlements and tax reform per the debt ceiling agreement, local community groups will need to bring their “A” game to preserve funding for their priority programs. It will not be easy. Now that the committee has been named, the focus will be on the individuals appointed to the panel. There will be tremendous pressure for them to reach consensus on a deal.

Because of what is at stake, they will ultimately reach a deal. Neither side wants to trigger the across the board cuts which will occur if an agreement isn’t reached. At the end of this process neither side is going to be completely happy with the results.

To help maximize your lobbying efforts, here are suggestions to consider:

• A new, more personal message has to be crafted to resonate with voters. The decision by Republicans to propose cuts to Medicare backfired because it affected people, both Republicans and Democrats, personally. In these tough economic times, your message has to resonate with the self-interest of the voter.

• Go outside of the box to deliver your message. The use of Twitter, Facebook, and the other social media outlets are important; however, programs like Ellen, The View, etc., have audiences that respond to emotional messages. Their producers look for stories for their principals to discuss and occasionally invite a guest to appear on a show. For example, seek stories which highlight individuals in various communities are being helped by programs which are in jeopardy of being eliminated by Congress.

• Be realistic in your expectations. Know what you want, but be realistic about what you can get. Cuts are unavoidable. It is ridiculous to think otherwise.

• Use the House budget numbers as the baseline in determining potential cuts. The House numbers are driving the debate. The administration and Senate Democrats have failed to coalesce around an alternative to the House budget proposal. Consequently, use these numbers in calculating potential cuts to your program to help with your advocacy efforts. It will also help prepare you for the programmatic and administrative changes you may face in the near future.

• Accurately assess the current political environment. The anti-Washington, DC sentiment throughout the United States is very intense across the political spectrum but that does not necessarily mean widespread dissatisfaction with specific programs. The uproar over potential cuts to Medicare and Social Security reminded everyone how sensitive the voting public can be when faced with specific options. However, budget changes will drive how Washington functions in the future. There will be changes in the way Washington funds and administers programs.

• Think of ways to be proactive with the coming changes. Be proactive in embracing the change to the benefit of the programs you support. Is this an opportunity to pursue programmatic, administrative or regulatory changes? This is always an opportunity in the midst of a challenge.

• Embrace tax reform. This is a bipartisan initiative which can raise revenue and create a more equitable tax structure for all income groups. It may also protect some programs from deep cuts or elimination.

Interesting Read

Whole Foods versus Cracker Barrel: How Americans Are Self-Sorting
By Charlie Cook
The Cook Report

Republicans Set Sights on Balanced Budget Amendment
By Jennifer Steinhauer
The New York Times

Panetta Warns Against ‘Doomsday’ Cuts of $600 Billion in Defense Spending
By Jason Ukman
The Washington Post

Debt-limit Deal Triggers Lobbying Campaign from Health-Care and Defense Industries
By Dan Eggen
The Washington Post

Two Parties Pray to the Same God, But Different Economists
By Michael Gerson
The Washington Post

End Political Gridlock: Put a Millennial in Charge
By Laura Sessions Stepp
Special to CNN

Are Millennials Cut Out for this Job Market?
By Ruben Navarrette, Jr.
CNN Contributor

Origins of the Debt Showdown
By Brady Dennis, Alec MacGillis and Lori Montgomery
The Washington Post

Fewer Dinners Mean Meaner Politics
By Lea Berman
The Washington Post

In Economic Turmoil, U.S. Needs a Leader Like Churchill
By David Gergen
CNN Senior Political Analyst

The American Dream hangs in the balance
By Joe Scarborough
Politico

We Can't Even Cut Programs That Don't Work
By Steven Malanga
Real Clear Politics

Postal Service proposes cutting 120,000 jobs, pulling out of health-care plan
By Joe Davidson
The Washington Post

Navigating the Presidential Politics of 2012 Begins Now!

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 21:12:00 +0000

The race for the presidency has begun. The debt ceiling agreement and its plan to reduce federal spending was the first salvo in the battle to claim the White House. Presidential politics is the order of the day between now and next November.

While many media outlets have identified winners and losers in the debt ceiling debate, it is more important to understand the lessons learned from the last few months. In this post, we will look at lessons we should have learned from this debate (or debacle depending on your perspective):

The nation’s fiscal situation has changed the nation’s political dynamics and community groups must adjust to this new reality. The new reality is more complicated than simply choosing between a more conservative Republican versus liberal Democratic approach to governance. The unwillingness to compromise at all costs by factions in both parties will make it difficult to find solutions to the pressing issues facing the nation.

The country needs to get its financial house in order, the international consequences are enormous. We simply cannot continue to carry the debt we currently hold and must reach some consensus on the escalating costs for entitlements, domestic and defense spending. Throughout the deficit reduction discussion the members of the president’s deficit commission were the only individuals made an honest, non-partisan, non-judgmental attempt to address those concerns. Their deliberations should be the model used for future discussions.

Balancing our nation’s budget is more complicated than solving a family’s finances. Comparing how our nation handles its finances to a family’s attempt to balance its budget is a good sound bite but that’s all. It is apples and oranges. Republicans discovered this immediately when they attempted to reform Medicare. The public, including Republican supporters, expressed opposition to entitlement reform. Republicans paid a political price and backed away.

Ideology, not practical governance, is driving politics. It is refreshing to see elected officials, the so-called Tea Party group, who are unconcerned with winning their next election. However, their desire to complete their mission at all cost could have crippled the world. That is frightening; however, their success and frustration during this debate will drive the debates between now and next November. What is obvious to one is a revelation to others. The ideological quandary afflicts both parties. Republicans placed theirs on full display in this debate.

Washington is now more about ideology and politics than governance. Governance issues get addressed as a byproduct of politics and ideology. There was a time when ideological differences did not prevent political leaders from bridging differences to reach a compromise on major issues facing the country. Even when the scion of conservatives, Ronald Reagan, was in office politics and ideology met in the middle. Those days are over in the foreseeable future.

Of all of the political leaders involved in the negotiations Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) emerged stronger politically while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) saw their credibility weaken. Cantor brazenly took every opportunity to undermine Boehner at different times during negotiations displaying an ugly rift within the party. It helped to create the impression that Republicans are unfit to govern.

President Obama is still learning how to use the bully pulpit of the presidency. He appeared weak at times during these negotiations. The contempt and disrespect some Republicans have for him were on full display during these negotiations. He seems more comfortable as the candidate than as the president which will serve him well going into next year. He will have to reassert himself next year. It is hard to view the president favorably during these discussions. He did not use his bully pulpit as effectively as he could have. He capitulated to Republican demands that an increase in the debt limit must include corresponding cuts to the federal budget and no new taxes. This made him appear weak at times but the Republicans – in the House in particular – helped him appear to be more reasonable than they appeared. There are some report that the scheduled expiration of the Bush era tax cuts in 2012 will give him the leverage needed to extract revenue increases and was one consideration for agreeing to this deal.

Local advocates relying on public funds need to understand things are going to get worse before they get better. There will probably be no further extensions for unemployment insurance, some changes in Medicare and Medicaid payments, cuts to defense, housing, education, etc. Simply taxing the rich will not get us out of this financial mess.

We need tax reform. Simply opposing tax increases or insisting on taxing the wealthy is a simplistic approach to addressing a fundamental problem: we live in a country which tends to punish individuals and families for the income they earn. A more reasonable tax code which closes some loopholes and balances out the tax rates – along the lines of the deficit commission – will help tremendously.

Poll after poll has indicated the American public was disgusted with the actions of its elected officials in Washington. The focus of blame was slanted based on the respondent’s ideology. However, the public must accept it share of blame for the gridlock in Washington. For the most part, Members of Congress’s actions reflected the desires of the people who elected them to office. It is far too easy to point fingers at Congress or the President and forget who put them there.

Interesting Read

Spending Cuts: Here Comes the Hard Part
By Charles Riley
CNN Money

In Debt Deal, The Triumph of the Old Washington
By David A. Fahrenthold, Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane
The Washington Post

Eric Cantor: Obama 'in over his head'
By Jennifer Epstein
Politico

GOP Ponders a Rick Perry 2012 Candidacy
By Alexander Burns & Maggie Haberman
Politico

Obama Should Leave the Table

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:49:00 +0000

President Barack Obama needs to end negotiations immediately. The time for talk is over. It is time to get a deal done and it is clear these individuals can’t get agree on anything. We are at a point where saving face is as important as getting a credible deal done. It is time to move on.

When everyone convenes Thursday, the president should tell all in attendance that he appreciates their effort, but there is not enough time to put together a deal that addresses the deficit and inflicts the least amount of pain on Americans. He should say he will only accept an unconditional increase in the debt ceiling.

He should say after he receives this authority, he will submit the findings of his deficit commission to Congress in legislative form. The recommendations provide for a balanced approach to the deficit everyone seeks. The recommendations enjoyed bipartisan support and will then be the starting point for new negotiations

He should then publicly announce his decision and instruct his staff to prepare for the United States to default if Republicans reject him.

It is not the perfect solution but everybody wins in the end.

Interesting Read

Top Republicans Clash over Debt-Limit Plan
By Paul Kane and Lori Montgomery
The Washington Post

With no Debt Deal, Obama Would Face Tough Choices Aug. 3 About What Bills to Pay
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
The Washington Post

Warning to Washington: Don’t Mess with the Debt Ceiling
By Bill Gross
The Washington Post

Debt talks blow up: The August debt ceiling showdown breaks along two fronts: the political forces of 2010 vs. 2012.
By: David Rogers
Politico

GOP lacks a lead Messenger : Republicans are searching for a national figure who can go toe to toe with Barack Obama.
By: Jake Sherman
Politico

Cantor risks overplaying hand: He faces consequences both if debt negotiations fail or if he cuts a soft deal with the president.
By: Jonathan Allen
Politico

Danger Lurking as Deficit Drama Continues

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:37:00 +0000

The drama surrounding the deficit reduction talks is not a good sign for domestic programs. With Republicans dug against tax increases the underlying question in the current stalemate is: who will blink first?

For supporters of domestic spending it doesn’t matter. In the end, domestic programs, including housing, will take it on the chin. How serious a blow these programs will receive won’t be resolved until the deficit discussion is completed. Until an agreement is reached, all discussions on a FY 2012 budget are in hold.

Therefore, it is not a surprise that the House Transportation-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee cancelled this week’s mark-up of a FY 2012 appropriations bill. After the deficit reduction numbers are agreed to, the real budget will be determined. While the devil is in the details, the parameters of deficit deal are unlikely to favor domestic programs.

By standing firm in their commitment to no new taxes Republicans have put themselves in a no-win situation. They seem to believe they have the leverage and that President Barack Obama is going to blink and accede to their demands before the deadline arrives.

The substance of a potential deal and its political subplot will one day make a writer rich! House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is clearly not in charge of the House Republicans. Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has positioned himself as the real power in the House. His actions are reminding the Speaker his hold on the speaker’s chair is a tenuous one. Cantor is a fiscal hawk who is championing efforts to reduce federal spending.

The president has looked weak at times appearing to bow to Republican demands. He has made extraordinary concessions by offering to reduce federal domestic spending and making significant cuts and changes to Medicare and Social Security. While these concessions are fiscally necessary, they seem to have strengthened the resolve of Republicans. He has become more assertive with Republicans accept some tax increases; however, it may be too little too late.

For housing providers, regulatory relief provides the only reasonable course of action to weather this fiscal storm. However, if it occurs, it will happen too late to have a reasonable impact on day-to-day operations. Public housing organizations are seeking both regulatory relief from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations and increased flexibility in the structure and use of housing vouchers. While there is some support in Congress for these measures, the pace is not happening quickly enough.

Additionally, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is using it administrative authority to reduce the reserve accounts of PHAs. PHAs use these reserve funds for operating expenses and, in some cases, to offset debt on capital expenditure. As much as agencies and their representative may disagree with HUD’s action, as long as they are dependent on the Federal government for funding, they have little recourse available to them.

These tough fiscal times should force all federally dependent groups to reevaluate what they are doing and how they are funded. Innovation will be the key in determining who survives in the future.

Chamber of Commerce Releases Survey Results

The United States Chamber of Commerce released the results of its second quarterly Small Business Survey which found that small business owners rank economic uncertainty as their number one concern.

Over 1,400 business owners were asked to identify their most pressing challenges and economic uncertainty topped the list followed by debt and deficit reduction, the health care law which was passed and over-regulation. A copy of the report can be found here.

Survey Points to Some Good/Bad Signs in Local Communities

The National League of Cities released a survey which shows progress in some sectors of local communities during the recession although residential property values continue to fall.

NLC recently released the responses to the Local Economic Conditions survey which tracks the impact of the recession on local communities. The survey is the first in a multi-year tracking effort on how the recession has affected local communities and to identify areas which mirror national indicators. The purpose of the survey series is to provide a parallel track to NLC’s 25-year survey on City Fiscal Conditions.

Among the findings:

• 45 percent of the respondents report the retail sector improving.
• 28 percent report that business permits and licenses are improving.
• 35 percent report increased investments in infrastructure and capital projects in the last six months.
• 51 percent report that residential property values have worsened.
• 44 percent report commercial property values have fallen.
• 41 percent report demand for survival services such as food banks and shelters has worsened.

The following areas were identified as most important to generate economic growth:

• small business development (54 percent);
• transportation infrastructure (49 percent);
• education/workforce training (31 percent); and,
• Housing and neighborhood development (25 percent).

A copy of the report can be found here.

HUD Releases Study of Fair Housing Initiative

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released the findings of a study of its Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP). The study, the first of its kind in the 15 years of the program, found that the program is successful in reducing the burden of governments at all levels in investigating complaints and that complaints filtered through the program are more likely to result in a binding legal resolution, conciliation or cause finding. The study can be found here.

Interesting Read

House GOP Not Ready to Blink on Debt
Quite Simply There is No Deficit-Reduction Proposal on the Table That Will Satisfy House Republicans.
By: Jake Sherman and Jonathan Allen
Politico

Obama Exploits Boehner-Cantor Rift
The President Has Managed to Exploit the Fragile Relationship that Exists Between the Two GOPers.
By: Jonathan Allen and Jake Sherman
Politico

In Senate, politics trump substance
By: Manu Raju
Politico

Why Obama's pushing for a mega-deal
By David Gergen
CNN

As Easy as ABC
Moving on from Mitch McConnell.
By William Kristol
The Weekly Standard

Debt-Limit Harakiri
Mitch McConnell isn't selling out Republicans
The Wall Street Journal

The President's Jobs Plan (Not)
By Robert Reich
The Huffington Post

Waiting for the Enemy to Blink on the Debt Limit
By Wesley Pruden
The Washington Times

Small Business Needs Big Boost
By Scott Brown
The Boston Herald

How Kevin McCarthy Wrangles the Tea Party in Washington
By Robert Draper
The New York Times

Pressure Heating Up on Deficit Talks

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:17:00 +0000

Now that President Barack Obama is more directly involved in the discussions to negotiate an agreement on deficit reduction, the pressure is building on all sides to bend before the nation’s debt ceiling needs to be lifted more than a month from now.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) decision to abruptly pull out of the talks in objection to potential tax increases does more to absolve him of any responsibility for an agreement he and his conservative allies oppose than it does to bring both parties closer together. Cantor can read the writing on the wall. House and Senate Republicans have expressed a willingness to explore the elimination of corporate tax loopholes and cuts to defense spending in order to reach a compromise with the president and Democrats.

Cantor fancies himself as a leader of the House conservative movement. As the point person for the House in these talks, he cannot be perceived as compromising on the no tax increase pledge. By agreeing, or even the perception he has agreed to, anything which looks like a tax increase could damage his credibility among conservatives. Cantor certainly has aspirations to become Speaker of the House one day and would prefer to have the current Speaker, John Boehner (R-OH), take the fall.

While there are many Republicans who would be happy to allow the federal government to default, they cannot afford to be seen as the cause for the failure to reach an agreement. Republicans are more concerned about scoring political points than reaching a reasonable compromise. Such a position is selfish and irresponsible. A reasonable deficit reduction plan cannot be achieved by simply reducing domestic programs and making adjustments to Medicare and Social Security. A balanced approach is required.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) must also be careful. He can ill afford to lose any Republican votes in the Senate. Reasonable minds will eventually prevail. It is hard to believe anyone will actually allow the government to default on its obligations.

Those seeking to preserve domestic spending should be encouraged by the inclusion of defense cuts in the mix. Cuts to the defense budget may limit the depth of reductions to domestic programs and could pave the way for an agreement. However, it doesn’t lessen the impact cuts will have on domestic programs. It does, however, illustrate how serious both sides of the aisle are in finding ways to reduce the federal deficit.

States Seek Ways to Respond to Stagnant Economy and Reduce Federal Aid

The United State Chamber of Commerce released its second study looking at ways in which states are seeking to create policies and practices which help businesses, stimulates job growth and increase state revenue.

Enterprising States 2011 Recovery and Renewal for the 21st Century, looks at ways in which states are responding to the new economic environment. While the specific actions vary from state-to-state, the report finds that states are redesigning themselves, reducing spending, and revising their tax codes and policies. The report also pointed out that have fared best have fostered a “business-friendly” environment. These states also invested in new infrastructure and in education and training.

Mayors Release Report on U.S. Metro Economies

The United States Conference of Mayors and the Council for the New American City released a report during their recently completed conference in Baltimore, MD which highlighted the bleak economic forecast within the nation’s urban settings. The report, U.S. Metro Economies Report: 2011, was completed by Global Insight. The key findings to mayor's report covers a range of issues. The mayors are hoping the reduction in military operations in Afghanistan will translate into increased spending for local economies.

Interesting Read

Obama enters debt talks
By Paul Kane and and Rosalind S. Helderman
The Washington Post

The Politics of the Debt Ceiling Are Too Tempting
By Stuart Rothenberg
Roll Call Contributing Writer

Debt ceiling talks turn to taxes - higher taxes!
By Charles Riley
CNNMoney

Revenue vs. cuts in debt debate
By: David Rogers
Politico

GOP compromise on debt: Cut military spending?
By Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane,
The Washington Post

Debt ceiling deal's ticking clock creates pessimism
By David Rogers
Politico

GOP boosts push for balanced-budget amendment
By Sean Lengell
The Washington Times

House GOP living up to 'Pledge to America'
By Jake Sherman
Politico

Politics

Obama’s 2012 Game Plan
How can the president rev up and mobilize his demoralized liberal base?
by Michael Tomasky
Newsweek Magazine

Hispanics' Ascent Drives Early Moves in 2012 Race
The Wall Street Journal

Why Michele Bachmann is no Sarah Palin
By Chris Cillizza
The Washington Post

Michele Bachmann, evangelical feminist?
By Dan Gilgoff
CNN.com Religion Editor

Housing and Community Development

In Many Cities, Jobs Recovery Could be a Decade Away
By Stephen Gandel

If baby boomers stay in suburbia, analysts predict cultural shift
By Carol Morello
The Washington Post

In California's Rich Farm Country, How the Poor May Get Poorer
By Jens Erik Gould
Time Magazine

Deficit Drama Continues, Impact on Budget Still Uncertain

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:59:00 +0000

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s decision to abruptly leave the deficit reduction talks throws another wrench into bipartisan efforts to reach a compromise on reducing federal spending. Republicans hard line on any tax increases or elimination of tax loopholes will make it extremely difficult to reach an agreement before the deadline to raise the nation’s debt limit.

If the Republicans are successful, domestic programs, including affordable housing programs are at risk of deep reductions over the next several years. Talks seemed to be progressing to the point where budget parameters for the next few years were coming into sharper focus. However, Cantor’s action and the Republican’s insistence on receiving a pledge from the president pretty much ensures an agreement will not be reached by the deadline.

The fact that some Members of Congress have expressed an interest in passing a temporary extension is an indication both parties realize while there is some progress being made, and that more time is needed. As budget pressures build, don’t be surprised if fewer groups express a reasonable position on deficit reduction like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). AARP stated they would accept reductions in benefits for future retirees until they received push back from Democrats and others.

There simply are too many competing and powerful interests groups yielding too much influence on negotiators. The pressure is squarely on the president. He is feeling the heat from Republicans and Democrats to submit a deficit reduction plan as a condition to having the ceiling raised. He needs to take the lead but not appear to be to pressure from Republic ans.

Republicans are operating from a position of strength For affordable housing programs, this is not a good sign for a number of reasons:

First, federal affordable housing programs have broad but shallow support in Congress and very little support among the general public. Public housing and the Section 8 voucher programs are not popular in local communities. In this political and economic environment, unpopular government programs will be the first targets of budget hawks. Even within the affordable housing community, it will be hard for broad coalitions to stick together when decisions are made about cutting programmatic budgets. At some point, self-interest will take over and the least popular programs will suffer.

Second, any efforts to spruce up the housing market will be targeted to homeownership. While it is becoming harder to own a home with tightening purchasing requirements, homeownership is still a strong indicator of economic progress. If the economy falters, housing production falters, if housing production falters fewer jobs and less upward mobility. In the eyes of too many important people, homeownership is more important to the overall economy than rental housing. When decisions are made about funding housing initiatives, homeownership initiatives will receive priority.

Third, the traditional message which said programs such as the Public Housing Capital Fund, HOME or CDBG are job creators, while technically correct, does not carry the same weight as it did in the past. Local governments are so overwhelmed job creation is only one concern. Cities and counties are getting squeezed top to bottom. From the top they are losing federal funds to address specific concerns. The economy has had negative consequences on families which means local politicians risk losing elections if they raise local taxes. There is not enough revenue to preserve existing jobs, create new ones and meet an array of fiscal obligations. At the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) meeting in Baltimore, the mayors called for an end to the wars and a redistribution of those resources to local governments. It is not going to happen. Local governments will be squeezed further and in most communities public housing will suffer the most.

The message needs to change dramatically. In 1995, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) did, in fact, change the discussion on affordable housing in a dramatic way. The organization called for block granting housing programs and eliminating the Brooke Amendment. NAHRO’s bold step jolted the affordable housing community. By taking the position and calling for the restructuring of housing programs, the decision broadened NAHRO’s political support across both sides of the aisle while forcing legislators, administrators and advocates to rethink how these programs are structured and administered.

NAHRO’s proposals were controversial but the subsequent discussion led to the passage of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration used its regulatory powers to neuter some of the flexibility provided housing administrators that was in the legislation. Nevertheless, NAHRO’s action is an example of the kind of initiative needed to reshape debate on public housing and do so in a constructive way.

Affordable housing groups need to hire a public relations firm that has the pulse on what Americans will support. Housing programs are slow, expensive and in no-win situations. If the property looks too nice, citizens feel it is a waste of taxpayer dollars on “undeserving” families. If it is not properly maintained, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The message must be about people not places. Many years ago NAHRO had ads in its magazine which highlighted the people served in public housing. A variation of that message needs to be the foundation of advocacy efforts.

Without a change in message, affordable housing is facing deep cuts from which some programs may never recover. Look at the groups screaming the loudest: farmer subsidy supporters, defense hawks, protectors of food and children nutritional and food programs. Housing groups cannot compete with them without a compelling argument which puts them, at minimum, at the table when decisions are made.

Interesting Read

Debt talks: Democrat Kent Conrad, Senate budget chair, says $2 trillion not enough
By Lori Montgomery and Rosalind S. Helderman
The Washington Post

Deficit talks in danger as Eric Cantor bails
By David Rogers
Politico

GOP's bold gamble on deficit talks
By David Rogers
Politico

Can Boehner play dealmaker on debt talks?
By Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan
Politico

Obama’s dilemma on the debt-limit talks
The Washington Post
By Michael Gerson

Democrats fret over White House dealmaking
By Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan
Politico

CBO: Debt could grow to double GDP
By David Rogers
Politico

AARP expects Social Security benefit cuts
By Jeanne Sahad
CNN Money

AARP Move on Social Security Could Help Avoid a Train Wreck
By David Gergen
CNN

Conservatives’ spending pledge
By Emily Miller
The Washington Times

Housing and Community Development

White House’s Daley seeks balance in outreach meeting with manufacturers
By Peter Wallsten and and Jia Lynn Yang
The Washington Post

The Indiana Exception? Yes, but...
By Michael Powell and Monica Davey
The New York Times

Eclipsed
Why the white working class is the most alienated and pessimistic group in American society.
by Ronald Brownstein
The National Journal

Interesting Reading to Start Your Week

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Tue, 31 May 2011 14:01:00 +0000

Housing and Community Development

Housing Market Suffers Biggest Decline in 16 Months
By Ben Terris
The National Journal

What, Me Worry? (Part 1)
Main Street: We’ve Got Bigger Problems
By Jim Tankersley
The National Journal

EDITORIAL: Unemployment reform
House to vote on easing 99-week benefit requirement
The Washington Times

Pro-Obama Media Always Shocked by Bad Economic News
By Michael Barone
Washington Examiner

Politics

NY-26: Big impact on deficit fights
By David Gergen
CNN

How the GOP could rescue Medicare reform
By Michael Gerson
The Washington Post

Republicans brace for tough 2012 fight against Obama in unlikely place — N.C.
By Amy Gardner
The Washington Post

Just who is Herman Cain? And what does his presidential run mean for the GOP?
By Jason Horowitz
The Washington Post

The 2012 Republican Battle Test
Why it's a good thing there's no obvious GOP front-runner.
The Wall Street Journal

For the real GOP field, wait until after Labor Day
By Roland Martin
CNN

The Cook Report: Room for One More
Watch for Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry to try to fill a void in the GOP presidential race.
By Charlie Cook
National Journal

The Road to Reelection Got Smoother for Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Thu, 26 May 2011 15:12:00 +0000

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ decision to forego a White House bid has increased the likelihood President Barack Obama will be reelected for a second term. Recognizing a lot can occur between now and November 2012, it appears the only thing that can truly sink the president’s reelection bid is a down economy.

Each of the remaining high-profile candidates mentioned - New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush - may attract Republican support but will have a difficult time unseating the president if the economy is on the upswing. None of the current candidates or prospective candidates generates excitement among the party faithful. If they have difficulty energizing their own party faithful, it is hard to imagine they will win the hearts and mind of independents and other voters.

The president must take advantage of the mistake made by Republicans who proposed cuts to Medicare without fully vetting the public’s appetite for such reductions. The cuts to Medicare proposed by House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) have not been well received and have put Republicans on the defensive. Now is the time for the president to push aggressively for a budget which preserves his priority programs while painting the Republicans as out of step with everyday Americans.

By not offering the recommendations of the deficit commission, the president has allowed himself to enter the partisan fray. He must step back and appear “presidential” as he did during the lame duck session last year. The pressure is not on Obama but on Republicans to come up with a reasonable number for a budget agreement.

Republicans will continue to paint the president as a “big-spending, socialist”; however, they realize how vulnerable they will be in 2012 with an uninspiring candidate, a proposal to radically change Medicare (which even Tea Party faithful do not want to see cut) and possibly being held responsible for the nation defaulting on its obligations if an agreement is not reached in extending the debt limit.

The budget discussions are the foundation for next year’s elections. A bi-partisan budget agreement does not help Republicans next year. Republicans need issues like the economy and Federal spending to be the focus of voter’s attention not the president himself. Focusing on specific issues versus the president will eliminate any risk of appearing overtly or covertly racist. Donald Trump’s unsuccessful attempt to question the president’s academic credentials is a prime example of how attacks on the president can quickly deteriorate.

If a reasonable budget agreement is reached, the president stays above the political fray, the economy shows signs of life and all other things being equal, Obama will be hard to defeat.

NLC Releases Financial Tool Kit for Elected Officials

The National League of Cities released a tool kit for municipal officials to assist families which are “unbanked” and “underbanked” to access traditional financial institutions. The toolkit is part of NLC’s Bank On Cities Campaign which is designed to help local leaders connect low- and moderate-income residents to mainstream financial services to avoid high-cost check-cashers, predatory lenders and other costly alternative financial services.

Interesting Read

Parties are still $1T apart on domestic spending
By David Rogers
Politico

Have Democrats cracked the code for 2012?
By Alexander Burns
Politico

Gang of 5/6 tries to salvage work
By Meredith Shiner
Politico

Will Republicans learn the lesson of NY-26 loss?
By Dan Balz
The Washington Post

The Wish List: Taking a Hard Look at Republicans Not in the Presidential Scrum
By Alex Roarty
National Journal

Stimulus price tag once again lurches higher
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times

Stimulus recipients found to be tax cheats
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times

The Elephant in the Green Room
By Gabriel Sherman
New York Magazine

If I Take Down Fox, Is All Forgiven?
By Jason Zengerle
New York Magazine

Deficit Talks Not Good for Housing

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Fri, 20 May 2011 19:58:00 +0000

Sen. Tom Coburn’s decision to withdraw from talks by the “Gang of Six” does not bode well for advocates hoping to stall cuts to federal housing programs. Coburn was part of a group of senators hoping to reach bipartisan agreement on a deficit reduction plan that could win broad congressional approval. Coburn’s decision to remove himself from those discussions makes reaching an agreement harder. As a result, the politics of deficit reduction will overshadow any substantive discussion that could occur.

President Barack Obama’s decision not to accept the recommendations of the deficit commission he empaneled as the starting point for these discussions has led to a more complicated, highly political process leaving Federal programs ripe for attacks. The deficit commission recommendations were easily approved in a bipartisan fashion after sparing no program from assuming a portion of the responsibility to reduce the federal deficit. This gave every politician in Washington the political version of a flak jacket when approaching sensitive issues like tax increases, cuts to entitlement programs and the defense budget. The commission members understood the need for broad action to reign in Federal spending. Their support for a series of hard choices demonstrated a bipartisan consensus on difficult issues could be reached.

Obama unwisely went in a different direction. The result was a contentious debate on the FY 2011 budget that went down to the wire and a more difficult set of negotiations with catastrophic consequences if an agreement is not reached. The more contentious these discussions the more likely “poorly administered” agencies will bear the brunt of cuts.

Anticipating cuts to its programs as a result of the discussions, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is beginning to distance itself from some of the local decision-making within local agencies. First, it is going make the salaries of housing agency directors more accessible to the public. These records are already a matter of public record but highlighting these salaries only adds fuel to the public’s discontent with government workers. It will lead to calls to reduce spending and salaries for public officials.

Second, HUD’s response to a series of articles in The Washington Post which questioned the management of funds administered through the HOME Investment Partnership program was to blame local decision-making. HUD said it has no control over how funds are administered. Mercedes Marquez, HUD’s assistant secretary for community planning and development, told The Washington Post, “this is what comes with having the flexibility of a block grant, where you respect local decisions.”

Now Members of Congress are calling for a review of HUD’s program. It does not come at a good time. The House Appropriations Committee releases its funding parameters for FY 2012 and housing programs are facing an overall reduction of 14 percent. Denial is the safest card for the department to play. If Republicans target HUD for deeper cuts, department officials can point to poor programmatic local decision-making as the culprit.

Republicans have aggressively argued additional cuts must accompany any increase to the nation’s debt limit. While no one truly expects Congress to allow the U.S. government to default on its obligations, the hard-line tactics worked effectively before an agreement on a FY 2011 budget was reached and a government shutdown was averted. The stakes are much greater now and the consequences too catastrophic for some to contemplate; however, there is a segment within congressional Republicans who would be happy to allow the deadline to pass without an agreement.

The seriousness posed by defaulting gives the president the slight edge in these negotiations. As long as he submits modest cuts during these negotiations, he places the burden on Republicans to move from their hardline stance or cause calamity. The increased scrutiny of HUD and the local officials will continue to put housing agencies on the defensive.

Interesting Read

Members of Congress call for probe of HUD’s HOME affordable-housing program
By Debbie Cenziper
The Washington Post

A trail of stalled or abandoned HUD projects
By Debbie Cenziper and Jonathan Mummolo
The Washington Post

Speculators score, District loses in affordable-housing deal
By Debbie Cenziper
The Washington Post

US: Philly housing agency overpaid for shoddy work; audit questions $127M in stimulus spending
By Associated Press
The Washington Post

Budget surplus to deficit: How we got here
By David Rogers
Politico

Can loan modification fix housing?
By Christipher Papagianis
Politico

Neo-Voodoo Economics
By Jim Tankersley and Michael Hirsh
The National Journal

New Strategy Required

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Fri, 06 May 2011 19:54:00 +0000

Congress returns from its spring recess to begin further discussions on a FY 2012 budget that includes concrete provisions to reduce Federal spending. In exchange for support for increasing the debt limit, Members of Congress from both parties are pressuring the White House and congressional leadership to agree to a spending plan that addresses deficit reduction in a real way.

For local housing providers receiving Federal funds, both the politics and the economics of the deficit reduction discussions means fewer funds in spite of efforts to garner congressional support for Federal programs. During the congressional recess, national groups have galvanized their members to express dismay over the cuts approved in the FY 2011 budget agreement and their opposition to further cuts in the FY 2012 budget. While these efforts are necessary they will prove fruitless and frustrating.

The White House and the congressional leadership of both parties have already conceptually agreed Federal spending should be reduced. Vice President Joe Biden has begun the first of a series of meetings with congressional Republicans and Democrats designed to reach an accord on deficit spending prior to the deadline to raise the debt limit. The decision by the House Republican leadership not to pursue changes to Medicare increases the likelihood that the framework of an agreement can be reached.

Meeting parallel to the Biden group is the “Gang of Six” – a bipartisan collection of senators committed to reaching an agreement on deficit reduction that could serve as a template for all parties to support. This group comprises Democrats Dick Durbin of Illinois, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and Mark Warner of Virginia and Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and Mike Crapo of Idaho.

Why does this matter? The bipartisan effort to reduce spending leaves housing advocates with few “back room” supporters to champion their concerns. The cuts to programs are inevitable. There are two fundamental questions housing providers need to determine: how deep will the cuts be? How to respond to these cuts?

It is difficult to answer for certainty the first question; however, one can look to the cuts agreed to in the FY 2011 budget to get an idea of what programs will be targeted. For example, public housing was cut more deeply than other programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) while tenant-based vouchers received an increase. Vouchers have received strong support because it gives the recipient an opportunity to “choose” where to live. As discussions for next year’s budget proceed, it is safe to estimate public housing funds will remain static at best or bear the brunt of further reductions.

This leads to the second question: how to respond to these cuts? It is in the industry’s best interest to more aggressively pursue regulatory and legislative changes to fundamentally change how public housing is funding and administered. There are efforts to reduce the administrative and regulatory burden of small agencies (those with less than 500 units) being pursued by the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA) and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO). They are joined by the Council of Large Public Housing Agencies (CLPHA) to expand the Moving-to-work program which allows housing authorities to combine their funding allocation and dispense the resources in a way which meets local need. These groups are also in discussion with HUD to identify regulatory and administrative changes to ease the burden on local agencies.

All of these efforts are important but they will only succeed if advocates for these program confront the political and economic reality – cuts combined with spending freezes means there must be out-of-the-box thinking if these programs are going to continue to provide a service to those in need.

Multigenerational Housing Increasing

The American Association of Retired People (AARP) Public Policy Institute recently released a report which showed an increase in the number of multigenerational households residing in the United States. The number increased from 6.2 million in 2008 to 7.1 million in 2010. There were 5 million multigenerational households in 2000.

The report cites an analysis by the Pew Research Center which states that one in five adults between the ages of 25 to 34 live in multigenerational households. Hispanics, African-Americans and Asians are more likely to live in multigenerational households than whites.

Interesting Read

Medicare fight exposes House GOP’s internal rifts
By David Rogers
Politico

Lawmaker Proposes Federal Hiring Freeze
By Emily Long
GovExec.com

Waiting Game
By Charlie Cook
National Journal

The Cook Report: Taking On Obama
By Charlie Cook
National Journal

Failure to Lead

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:11:00 +0000

President Barack Obama and congressional leaders have demonstrated a failure to lead in their respective approaches to tackling the budget. Both the president and the Republican leadership are more concerned with positioning themselves favorably with the public than they are in reaching a bipartisan solution to our mounting deficit.

The president’s decision to present a deficit reduction plan was opportunistic, simply to distinguish himself from the proposal presented by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). Ryan’s plan was approved by the House of Representatives along party lines. While a clever move it only occurred because Obama has an eye on reelection which would be in jeopardy if he appears disinterested in tackling such a thorny issue.

He passed on a leadership moment when he decided not to endorse the recommendations submitted by the Deficit Reduction Commission which he created. The bipartisan commission members demonstrated tremendous leadership by submitting a set of recommendations which left nothing off of the table: cuts to politically popular programs affecting all segments of society and even proposing tax increases.

Ryan’s plan avoids serious discussion about defense spending and tax increases. Republicans insist that the cure to our problems is to eliminate domestic spending and let the free market reign. Since it didn’t work in the housing market why should anyone expect it to cure our budget problem. Republicans need to be honest and admit their decisions to enact tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and pay for two wars with no regard for the deficit helped create the problem we are facing. Like it or not, they need to recognize that tax reform, even if it means tax increases, must be part of the deficit reduction plan.

Republicans today are acting like the Democrats did before welfare reform was enacted. Democrats knew the problems inherit in the welfare programs and did nothing about them when given the opportunity. They could not accept that the program created a level of dependency that was ruining communities. Republicans took control of Congress and passed legislation changing the program as it had been structured for generations.

The deficit is the Republican version of welfare reform. They (Republicans) know it needs to be addressed but are unwilling to sacrifice ideology (no tax increases) to agree to part of the solution (tax increases) most experts agree must occur.

The politics of the Federal budget tends to force our elected officials to shy away from making hard decisions. The thought of reducing benefits to the elderly, the poor and the ill or cutting defense spending is not pleasant. The truth is the 800 pound gorilla called the trillion dollar deficit needs to be cut down to size. It will be bloody and leave behind many wounded. Leadership isn’t made, it is found. Hopefully, the nation will become stronger because of the debate and we find the leaders we are lacking.

Interesting Read

GOP escalates debt-limit demands
By Jake Sherman & Jonathan Allen
Politico

Tax the rich! OK, but then what, Mr. President?
CNN Money

Sorry, GOP: Tax revenue needs to go up
CNN Money

Death Wish? Republicans pushing to revamp Medicare could find themselves voted out of office in the next election.
By Charlie Cook
National Journal

Obama’s Young Mother Abroad
By Janny Scott
New York Times Magazine

The Crystal Ball’s First 2011 Take on 2012’s Electoral College
By Larry Sabato
Crystal Ball

Florida may be do-or-die for 2012ers
By Alexander Burns
Politico

Time to Rethink Federal Housing Programs

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:21:00 +0000

Now that a deal appears to be in place for the balance of FY 2011, the discussion will now turn to FY 2012. As President Obama prepares to outline his deficit reduction plan, further cuts to Federal housing programs are to be expected. As a result, families will have to find a way to pay more of their housing costs as local providers struggle to offset budget losses with lay-offs, reduced services and deferred maintenance.

The budget agreement reached last week is expected to receive bipartisan support and is expected to pass. The cuts included in this agreement will be a precursor for what is expected to be deeper cuts in FY 2012. House Republicans released a deficit reduction plan for FY 2012which is expected to reduce funding for the public housing and voucher programs.

To offset these reductions, the structure and funding for federal housing programs need to change in order to survive. Public housing has proven to be a vehicle which has provided low-income families to have a “decent, safe and affordable home.” Former President Jimmy Carter, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Starbucks founder Howard Schultz, and comedienne Whoopi Goldberg are among the millions who spent part of their lives growing up in the “projects”.

To preserve this resource for poor families dramatic changes must occur:

HUD needs to be Re-evaluated

Serious consideration needs to be given to restructure the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). First, its mission needs to be re-evaluated. The department was created in 1965 as part of the Great Society programs founded by President Lyndon Johnson’s administration. According to its website, the department’s mission “…is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes: utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination; and transform the way HUD does business.”

It is time to reconsider the department’s role in meeting local needs. As the department approaches 50-years old in 2015, the current budget situation provides an opportune time to look how best to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the department and act accordingly.

Second, the federal entity overseeing housing should have a governing structure modeled after the Federal Reserve Board. Each member of the Board receives a 14-appointment after going through a vetting process. The chairman is appointed by the president to a four year term. This type of governing structure allows for long-term planning, minimizes policy changes which create havoc locally, and minimizes the politics of board appointments. This approach has tremendous political, practical and policy implications and should be carefully thought out. There are many competing forces pulling the department in different directions. A “tenured” HUD secretary can be more effective in bringing these various actors together to work on a sustainable housing agenda.

Change the Narrative

Federal housing programs have an image problem. The public housing and Section 8 programs are considered poorly run programs of little value to the surrounding community. These programs are considered housing of last resort. According to HUD, there are more than 3,000 housing authorities and less than 200 are considered troubled. The vast majority are providing appropriate services to the poor. Unfortunately, perception is reality. The narrative must change.

Public housing has a rich history of providing working families with an affordable dwelling while in pursuit of the American Dream. Advocates have failed to put a “face” to these programs which demonstrate the role it plays in the socioeconomic fabric in society. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the latest of thousands of former public housing residents who are making significant contributions to society. Their stories need to be the message of public housing.

New Media Strategy

In the age of 24-hour cable and internet the media strategy is different, difficult and complicated. Traditional forms of media to influence policy-makers, i.e., editorial pages and policy television programs have given way to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rachael Maddow, Steve Colbert and Oprah Winfrey. In order to survive organizations need to understand which news forms are influencing policy and adjust accordingly. While organizations are using various forms of the new media to reach their members and supporters, it is unclear how effective they are in influencing.

Now is the time for the competing housing advocacy organizations to unite behind a single media initiative-- share the costs of an integrated campaign, broadcast nationally via traditional network television, cable television and the Internet. The effort should choose an individual or group of individuals to speak on behalf of public housing. This person should be recognizable and appreciated by both Republicans and Democrats. To be sure that the message resonates with the public, the campaign must be centered on a short catchy slogan that captures the key realities of what public housing means to America.

Lessons Learned from the Budget Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:02:00 +0000

Now that the House has approved a continuing resolution for the balance of FY2011, here is one writer’s take on seven lessons learned from the debate which will influence future funding discussions:

1. While unorthodox by Washington standards, the decision by the Speaker to open the floor to amendments allowed Members of Congress to actually do the work expected of them: propose, debate and vote on issues affecting the nation. It is encouraging to see Congressmen and women actually voting on legislation versus sniping at each other. Look for this free flowing form of debate to continue.

2. To both of the political parties’ credit, members took votes that did not fall along party line. There were Republicans and Democrats uniting to defeat spending measures deemed unnecessary. There were odd mixes of liberals, moderates and conservatives teaming up on legislation, which offers a glimmer of hope that bipartisanship can occur in some instances this year.

3. The Tea Party deserves credit for ushering in a group of individuals who are not toting the party line on issues. They are actually forcing the leadership, and the House as a whole, to make hard, substantive, and politically risky decisions.

4. Even Democrats realize the need to rein in government spending. While it is easy to paint Republicans as heartless, the truth is no reasonably intelligent person could believe the country can sustain its current level of Federal government spending.

5. For the remainder of this fiscal year and the next, the president’s proposed FY2012 budget is the ceiling and the House version of FY 2011 funding bill is now the floor for Federal programs. Constituencies from both parties will feel the effects of cuts regardless of the outcome in the Senate.

6. Constituencies will have to devise new, creative strategies to preserve funding for their programs. It will not be enough to indicate the impact on individuals, families and communities. No one will be immune; therefore, the message must be distinct, simple and compelling.

7. Give credit where credit is due: the president’s deficit commission had the guts to call for cuts to ALL programs in order to seriously address the bulging deficit. Not including entitlement programs and defense in the list of cuts demonstrated a lack of leadership in Congress and the White House. The commission members were the only individuals willing to recognize the seriousness of our nation’s fiscal problem and offer a tangible, albeit unpopular, solution.

Interesting Read

How a government shutdown could happen
By Jonathan Allen & Carrie Budoff Brown
Politico

Republicans float $2 billion a week in cuts
By Jonathan Allen
Politico

Town hall 'rage' over spending
By Marin Cogan
Politico

House GOP spares no pet projects in trimming budget
By Philip Rucker
The Washington Post

Budget deadlock points to government shutdown
By Kara Rowland
The Washington Times

Lawmakers Play Down Shutdown, But Solution Is Elusive
By Humberto Sanchez
The National Journal

What might happen if federal government shuts down again
By Ed O'Keefe
The Washington Post

The Wrong Fight
By Ronald Brownstein
The National Journal

The Cook Report: Hang On Tight
By Charlie Cook
The National Journal

Senate Momentum Builds for a Deficit-Cutting Deal
By Steven T. Dennis
Roll Call

Republican governors strike at heart of Democratic Party
By Jonathan Martin & Ben Smith
Politico

Economy poll: African Americans, Hispanics were hit hardest but are most optimistic
By Michael A. Fletcher and Jon Cohen
The Washington Post

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has history of going up against unions
By Brady Dennis
The Washington Post

GOP lawmaker probes HUD’s non-disclose pact
By Chris Frates
Politico

Bingaman Exit Gives GOP an Opening in a Toss-Up Race
By Jennifer Duffy
National Journal

Incumbents, Beware
By Charlie Cook
The National Journal

The End of Fannie and Freddie?
Closing the troubled housing agencies is not the only mortgage market fix we need.
By Arnold Kling
The Weekly Standard

Deep Cuts to Housing Programs on the Way

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:23:00 +0000

Housing programs will join the list of other Federal programs subject to reductions when the president submits his FY 2012 budget Valentine’s Day. While President Barack Obama is proposing “painful” cuts to key programs in the next fiscal year in an effort to reduce the deficit, his proposal pales in comparison to the cuts proposed by House Republicans for the balance of the current fiscal year. Their proposal calls for close to $6 billion in cuts to housing programs as part of $100 billion in cuts to Federal programs.

Anticipating negative reaction to the Obama budget proposal, the president’s staff has contacted supporters of various programs to provide them with a heads up to pending cuts. In a New York Times editorial Jack Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), stated the president is proposing a budget which reflects the need to reduce the deficit and the fact that hard choices will need to be made. Included in the Obama proposal will be a cut to the community development block grant (CDBG) program by seven and one half percent or $300 million. To administrators of the program, this is a significant to communities which count on these funds to provide local services but it is less than total elimination of the program as proposed by the Republican Study Committee.

According to Housing Affairs Letters, which provides daily coverage of housing and community development news, public housing will take hits to its key programs including $1.1 billion in cuts to the public housing operating fund; funding for tenant-based vouchers for the remaining seven months of FY 2011; and, a $300 million cut to the public housing capital fund. The administration seems to want to use some of the housing programs to help pay for a passenger rail plan.

While the administration will argue their proposed cuts across the board are part of the shared pain all must endure, their budget proposal is sure to set off anguish cries from the various interest groups with a claim to federal funds. It will not cause the same consternation as the cuts proposed by Republicans. In fact, Democrats and the Administration should be thankful that Republicans were offering such drastic cuts. To the general public, Obama’s FY 2012 proposal will seem modest in comparison.

The defense industry, homeland security and programs benefiting veterans have been deemed untouchable. While Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are considered sacred cows, there will be attempts to curb spending for those programs at another point in time in the process. For now, non-entitlement domestic programs will bear the brunt of the proposed cuts this year. It is safe to assume the president’s proposed budget is the best case scenario for funding for FY2012 given the disparity between the president and Republicans on how to achieve deficit reduction.

The president’s 2012 budget proposal will come three weeks before the continuing resolution for FY2011 expires March 4. As reported in last week’s post, it is not unreasonable to expect a temporary shutdown of the government. Republicans on the House side are seeking significant cuts to Federal programs Democrats and the administration will simply not agree to. Senate Republicans are supportive of their House counterparts and can apply enough pressure to slow the appropriations process in their chamber increasing the likelihood of a temporary shutdown.

Republicans Seek Cuts Now

As the president released his FY2012 budget, Republicans were calling for deep cuts to housing programs for the remainder of FY2011 including the virtual elimination of the CDBG program, $1.5 billion in cuts to housing vouchers, $616 million in cuts to the capital fund, $340 million to HOPE VI (essentially gutting the program), and $203 million to the public housing operating fund. The Republican proposal includes $350million in cuts to the Transforming Rental Assistance initiative which is designed to replace HOPE VI.

President’s Budget Likely Dead on Arrival

Expect the president’s FY 2012 budget to be dead on arrival to Republicans when it is released on Valentine’s Day. Republicans will simply dismiss it as they pursue the more dramatic cuts for the remainder of this fiscal year. History may repeat itself. In the mid-nineties Republicans swept into office believing they had a mandate from the American people to cut spending and forced a government shutdown. The level of cuts proposed by Republicans is so deep it is difficult to see them reaching a compromise with the president before the current continuing resolution expires in early March.

Democrats should feel ecstatic about the Republican proposal. A recent poll has shown that Americans are concerned about increased federal spending but are less supportive of reducing these funds when specific programs are identified. Democrats would prefer to extend the current CR for the balance of the fiscal year. Now they can paint Republicans as being out of touch with the American people which may strengthen their hand in the ensuing negotiations. However, the Republican proposed cuts are so deep the likelihood of a government shutdown has increased.

MacArthur Foundation Announces Housing Research Grants

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation announced February 7 the awarding of nine grants totaling $5.6 million for research to explore the role housing plays in the long-term health and well-being of children, families, and communities.

The nine projects, selected through a competitive process from a pool of 150, were awarded as part of the Foundation's $25 million initiative on How Housing Matters to Families and Communities. The initiative is based on the premise that stable, affordable housing is an essential platform that promotes positive outcomes in education, employment, and physical health by helping to ensure a greater return from other social and public investments. The goal is to help policy makers better direct increasingly scarce public resources to enhance housing outcomes and to achieve broader goals of healthier, better educated, and more successful families and communities.

The nine grant recipients are a mix of studies on the relationship between housing and a series of social and economic concerns including education, health, and economic opportunity:

* Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City -- $1 million to study the role subsidized housing plays in the education and financial and physical health of children and families;

* Boston College -- $900,000 to study the impact of low-income families' housing decisions on children's well-being;

* New York University -- $800,000 to study the impact of housing instability due to foreclosure on school performance;

* The University of Maryland -- $700,000 to model the impact of housing subsidies on children's future participation in the labor force;

* RAND Corporation -- $600,000 to study whether social networks are a key pathway through which low-income residents realize the social and economic benefits of living in mixed-income housing or neighborhoods;

* University of Wisconsin-Madison -- $600,000 to study the effects of federal and state income support policies on homeownership stability and child maltreatment;

* Brown University -- $500,000 to support a study on the relationship between compulsory savings and homeownership in Mexico and on the effects of homeownership on formal labor market participation;

* Harvard University -- $300,000 to study the long-term social, psychological, and economic implications of eviction; and

* University of Chicago -- $200,000 for a study on the impact of childhood housing instability on long-term health and education outcomes.

Interesting Read

Fewer Want Spending to Grow but Most Cuts Remain Unpopular
Changing Views of Federal Spending
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Obama to propose spending cuts in budget plan aimed at countering conservatives
By Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery
The Washington Post

Senate Democrats, House GOP clash over shutdown threat
By Sean Lengell
The Washington Times

The fierce urgency of David Plouffe
By Glenn Thrush
Politico

Is the GOP overreaching on budget?
By David Rogers
Politico

After hard week, GOP has 'group hug'
By Jake Sherman
Politico

Obama report on Fannie, Freddie plan may boost mortgage rates
By Zachary A. Goldfarb and Brady Dennis
The Washington Post

Brace for a Government Shutdown

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 04:01:00 +0000

The likelihood of a government shutdown increased when House Republicans passed a resolution calling for approximately $60 billion in cuts to non-defense spending for the balance of the FY 2011. Approved primarily along party lines just before the president delivered his State of the Union address, the resolution underscores the commitment of House Republicans to reduce federal spending.

The resolution (H. Res. 38) establishes the starting point for Republican negotiations with the White House and Democrats in funding the federal government for the remainder of the current fiscal year. Given the two other fiscal issues to be debated this year – increasing the federal debt limit and passage of a FY 2012 budget – how funding for FY2011 is resolved will impact the debate on the other two issues.

FY 2011

During the lame-duck session, Congress averted a shutdown of the Federal government by passing a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government functioning until March 4. The short-term CR was a victory for Republicans who wanted to pursue a strategy to reduce non-defense discretionary spending immediately. Republicans are going to insist that funding for the remainder of this fiscal must include deep cuts to programs. Analysts estimate the $60 billion cut proposed in the resolution could mean a 20 percent cut to programs.

Democrats will be hard pressed to prevent the Republicans from approving an appropriations bill with significant cuts to federal spending. Some version of House Republicans’ bill will be approved by that chamber. In the House, it is easier for the majority to approve bills it favors; therefore, a proposed budget for the balance of FY 2011 emanating from that chamber will include deep cuts. However, Senate Democrats will not allow the cuts to be approved in their chamber. They will probably prefer a continuation of the current CR. Once the Senate passes a measure they must negotiate a compromise with the House on a final spending bill for 2011.

The political maneuvering that accompanies this effort to reach a compromise will cause a likely government shutdown. There are too many activists within the Republican Party calling for an aggressive, and if necessary, protracted fight with the president. They are prepared to risk the fall out of a shutdown to leverage deep cuts. There could be another CR passed with modest reductions in funding or a hard commitment to ensure there are deeper cuts in the FY2012 budget. Given the desire to hold the line on spending, there is a real possibility the Federal government will be shut down for a short period of time

FY 2012

When the president submits his FY2012 budget next week it will be dead on arrival in the House before the last copy is submitted to Congress. While the President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech called for “investments” in infrastructure and education to keep America competitive, Republicans believe he is simply seeking another opportunity to increase federal spending. They, in turn, are determined to prevent that from happening.

The political dynamics of the FY2011 bill will repeat itself for the FY2012 bill. Republicans in the House will simply pass a version of the FY2012 appropriations bill with cuts totaling as much as $100 billion. In that scenario, the Senate will once again need to approve a spending bill that does not include such large cuts. Expect Republicans to become more aggressive in pursuing cuts in FY2012. Another shutdown in October is not out of the question. Anger and frustration over the outcome of negotiations with the White House and Democrats over funding levels could cause Republicans to be willing to risk another shutdown.

Debt Ceiling

The debt ceiling is the biggest issue. Sandwiched between the two funding discussions will be a vote to raise the debt ceiling to allow the government to borrow to pay for its obligations. The limit has been raised every year without fanfare; however, this year Republicans hope to use it as leverage for deep spending cuts. Some Republicans are willing to risk the US defaulting on its’ obligations (which can have dramatic world-wide implications, according to some experts) and shutting down the government.

As bad as a government shut-down would be, it pales in comparison to a national default. The impact on the value of the dollar and other considerations would be spectacular. It is absolutely unthinkable that new members of Congress would play around with this issue. If they want to truly wreck the economy, not just America's but that of much of the western world, failing to increase the U.S. debt limit would do it.

The Seeds of a Shutdown Exist

The seeds of a shutdown are in place. The presidential election of 2012 is the 800 pound gorilla driving everything that goes on in Washington. The desire to win the election at all cost is strong. Each party’s strategic decisions are being weighed with the presidential election in mind. Some events, such as the situation in Egypt, complicate decision-making as it relates to the next election. However, one misstep could damage an individual’s and party’s presidential aspirations.

This group of Republicans is very different from the one which swept into office after the historic election of 1994. That group was unified by a Contract with America which was drafted by the Republican leadership. Its subsequent strategy was orchestrated by the same people. Republicans voted into office in November do not have the allegiance to the leadership but to the Tea Party activists. Some of them have pledged to shut the government down if necessary as part of their campaign and are committed to fulfilling that pledge.

These seeds could germinate and be the cause, individually or in some form of combination, of a shutdown:

The recession has heightened fear, anger and frustration causing people to lose faith in the prospects of a secure future. This resulted in voters lashing out at anything that appears to be the cause of these emotions. The current target is the “government”.
The Tea Party has created a structure to some of the voices expressing frustration and feelings of being ostracized and unappreciated. This structure is separate from the established Republican Party making it less likely Members of Congress with allegiance to this group will be easily co-opted by the party elders.
The Republican victories on the congressional and state levels have deepened the resolve of fiscal conservatives to draw a line in the sand on federal spending.
The internet has allowed people to express themselves free from filters and accountability. Coupled with the 24 hour cable news cycle, issues never die a natural death and individuals can be mobilized quickly.
It is naïve to think that racism doesn’t play a role in some of the discontent with President Obama. Some of it is masked, some of it is out in the open but the president has been demonized, painted as a Muslim extremist, and viewed as a socialist. The residual effects of ensuring his failure due to his race will play some role in what takes place this year.

Who to watch

As the year progresses, keep an eye on how these individuals react to budget proposals. They could decide what types of funding cuts are approved this year:

Tea Party Faithful: There are many Tea Party faithful who rely on Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. If Republicans like Ryan are serious and proposed cuts to the benefits of these three programs, it will be interesting to see who among the Tea Party are adversely affected by the cuts and how they react to it.

The business community: Specifically, those who are dependent on government contracts and those who receive subsidies. It is hard to believe they will sit on the sideline and allow their source of money to dry up.

State and local government officials: State and local governments rely on federal funds for a variety of projects meeting a variety of needs from infrastructure to education. They will be the first to bear the brunt of any cuts and will be forced to make harder decisions within their own budgets without federal assistance.

Interesting Read

Senate Dems give in on earmark ban
By Scott Wong
Politico

Poll: GOP should listen to tea party
By Jennifer Epstein
Politico

With 2012 looming, Obama focuses on economy
By Peter Wallsten
The Washington Post

Mitch McConnell: A Senate obstructionist could turn into a man of action
By Karen Tumulty
The Washington Post

Obama challenges the nation - and Republicans
By Dan Balz
The Washington Post

Fact Checking Ryan and Bachmann: the stimulus
By Glenn Kessler
The Washington Post

Analysis: President, GOP lawmakers agree on austerity, but will it create jobs?
By Lori Montgomery
The Washington Post

Against the Grain
By Josh Kraushaar
The National Journal

The Right Direction
By Charlie Cook
The National Journal

The Senate vs. the future
By Ezra Klein
The Washington Post

Orrin Hatch plays ball with tea party
By Manu Raju
Politico

Conservatives lay out $2.5 trillion in cuts
By Richard E. Cohen & Simmi Aujla
Politico

Campaign 2012

Political Blogs Ready to Flood Campaign Trail
By Jeremy W. Peters
The New York Times

The early-state scramble: It's on!
By Molly Ball
Politico

2012 kickoff could come as early as February
By Alexander Burns
Politico

A big warning sign for Romney
By: Jonathan Martin
Politico

Obama could survive some bumps on road to 2012 reelection
By Chris Cillizza
The Washington Post

New Lines Complicate 2012 House Campaigns
By Tricia Miller
Roll Call

Housing and Community Development

Governors, unions brace for battle
By Melissa Maynard
Stateline

Health-care law: Arizona tries new approach to get by federal Medicaid rules
By N.C. Aizenman
The Washington Post

The West Wing, Season II
By John Heilemann
New York Magazine

When Talk Radio Talks, Congress Listens
By Christina Bellantoni
Roll Call

Retailers offer financial services to 'unbanked'
By Ylan Q. Mui
The Washington Post

A New Congress, Politics, Challenges and Opportunities

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:22:00 +0000

When the new Congress convenes this week the bipartisanship of December’s lame duck session will be a distant memory. President Barack Obama, Republicans and Democrats will enter into a new environment without the “luxury” of a deadline to force all parties to compromise for the good of the country. While there are some from across the political spectrum who believe the deals fashioned were not in the country’s best interest; nonetheless, the deals struck offer a glimmer of hope entering the new congressional season.

Challenges will begin immediately as the incoming House Republicans initiate a series of new rules designed to make the congressional process more transparent and to regularly have the Constitution read to emphasize the fact that the growth and reach of the Federal government has exceeded that which is allowed by the Constitution.

Additionally, Republicans plan to hold oversight hearings to force administration officials to appear before Congress and explain to Members and the public (the hearings will be aired live) how policies were developed and decisions made. The intent is to expose the administration to public scrutiny and prevent it from continuing to pursue its agenda.

The real battle will be over budget. An agreement still needs to be reached on the FY 2011 budget. This debate will be merged with the request to raise the debt ceiling to allow the government to continue to function. Raising the debt ceiling has never been an issue but it will be a major issue for the fiscal conservative wing of the Republican Party.

Republicans scored a major victory during the lame duck session in ensuring a continuing resolution was extended only to March 4. This strengthened their position to pursue budget cuts; however, the ensuing debate will generate enough fireworks to rival those displayed during the annual Fourth of July celebration. Veteran Republicans understand they need to be careful not to challenge the president so aggressively and without the willingness to compromise. There are incoming Republicans freshmen itching for a showdown with the president on the budget and some have arrived with the intent to shut down the government. That approach comes with the same risks realized by the party in its last showdown with a former Democratic President. In the 90s Republicans aggressively challenged former President Bill Clinton on the budget, forced a government shutdown and paid a heavy political price for it. The same could occur this year.

During the lame duck session Obama utilized the bully pulpit of the presidency very effectively to persuade members to pass the Bush era tax cuts, enact the START treaty and repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Obama demonstrated, as former presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan demonstrated after the mid-term elections of 1994 and 1982 respectively, the president is most effective when he rises above the partisan fray and promotes issues and ideas which are more important than the politics surrounding them.

The country is neither as conservative as Tea Partiers would like nor as liberal as the left would prefer. Republicans must realize the election results were not a mandate to change the Obama policies of the last two years. The public mandate is to stop the partisan bickering so both parties can work together to solve our nation’s problems.

Hispanics True Winners of 2010 Census

Hispanics will prove to be the biggest winners when the full impact of the 2010 census is evaluated. Republicans clearly gained leverage when the results were announced as Red states had the largest population growth in the last decade. However, in most states the growth is a direct result of the rise in the Hispanic population.

Hispanics accounted for over 60 percent of the growth in Texas, Florida, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia. Of these states Texas gained four congressional seats and Florida gained two seats. Other states gaining seats included Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington. Even in states that lost seats the Hispanic population grew, for example, Hispanics in Illinois grew 90 percent. Other states losing seats included New York and Ohio (which lost two seats each), Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania which lost one seat each.

Clarissa Martinez De Castro, who works for the National Council of La Raza (a Hispanic civil rights group based in Washington, DC), was quoted in The Washington Post as being concerned with the public’s perception of Hispanics. She said 90 percent of the Hispanics counted were 18 years of age or younger and are United States citizens. As that group matures, they will become a potent political force in the country regardless of their party of choice. Their political affiliation of choice will likely be formed by their parents who voted overwhelmingly Democratic in the November 2010 election.

President Obama is expected to pursue comprehensive immigration reform which will meet firm opposition from Republicans, and some Democrats, in both chambers. House Republicans will address immigration as a jobs issue so as not to appear to be anti-Hispanic. Given the growth of the Hispanic community and its tendency to vote for Democrats, Republicans will be careful to not allow their short-term gains be negated in the future by initiatives perceived as anti-Hispanic. They could shoot themselves in the foot and relinquish their gains before the end of the decade.

Interesting Read

2010 Congress

Austerity is first order for Boehner's installation as House speaker
By Philip Rucker
The Washington Post

John Boehner's leadership style is 'anti-Pelosi'
By Richard E. Cohen
Politico

Two new rules will give Constitution a starring role in GOP-controlled House
By Philip Rucker and Krissah Thompson
The Washington Post

What Republicans have done -- and what they need to do
By Ed Hornick
CNN

Tea-party activists question if rebel political movement has changed for worse
By Amy Gardner
The Washington Post

Spending showdowns will test new Congress
By Charles Babington
The Associated Press

Life of the Party
By Deborah Solomon
The New York Times

One for the Books
By Ronald Brownstein
The National Journal

'The Wussification of America': Parting Shots From Gov. Ed Rendell on the NFL and More
By Jim O'Sullivan
National Journal

The Fix's 11 big questions for 2011
By Aaron Blake
The Washington Post

Incoming Congress girds for warfare
By Jonathan Allen
Politico

Mitch McConnell's iron grip slips
By Glenn Thrush & Manu Raju
Politico

Not such a lame-duck session: What Congress passed, Obama signed in week
CNN

Daughter says Newt Gingrich's 'serious' about 2012
By Jennifer Epstein
Politico

Housing and Community Development

Obama administration steps up monitoring of banks that miss TARP payments
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
The Washington Post

How a mortgage clearinghouse became a villain in the foreclosure mess
By Ariana Eunjung Cha and Steven Mufson
The Washington Post

A Push to Privatize Pennsylvania Liquor Stores
By Katherine Q. Seelye
The New York Times

In California, Few Signs of Transition
By Jennifer Medina
The New York Times

Wisconsin State Workers Fret, as G.O.P. Takes Over
By Monica Davey
The New York Times

Entrepreneurs Ask Santa for Loans, Lower Taxes
By Sarah E. Needleman
The Wall Street Journal

Immigration

Political Battle on Illegal Immigration Shifts to States
By Julia Preston
The New York Times

Immigration Overhaul Is Unlikely Without a Shift in Public Attitudes
By Peter Brown
The Wall Street Journal

Lamar Smith avoids hard line on immigration
By Carrie Budoff Brown
Politico

The GOP's census dilemma: Embrace immigration or gerrymander
By Edward Schumacher-Matos
The Washington Post

2010 Census

Behind Census Figures Showing Boom in Nevada, a Story of Bust
By Adam Nagourney
The New York Times

With census growth, Hispanic groups target redistricting to up political clout
By Krissah Thompson
The Washington Post

Census data realigns congressional districts in key political states
By Sandhya Somashekhar and Aaron Blake
The Washington Post

Census shows slowing US growth, brings GOP gains
By Hope Yen and Charles Babington
The Associated Press

Texas Hispanics set to challenge status quo in reapportionment
By David Mildenberg and Darrell Preston
Bloomberg News

Reapportionment winners and losers
By Aaron Blake
The Washington Post

Republicans Flex Muscle in Lame-Duck Session

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:23:00 +0000

The congressional lame duck session will come to a close soon now that the legislation to extend various tax cuts including the Bush tax cuts and unemployment benefits has passed the House and will be signed by the president. The next step will be to approve a FY 2011 spending measure.

A lame duck session became necessary because the outgoing Congress did not pass any of the 12 appropriations bills that fund the government. However, that earlier passed CR expires at 12:01 a.m., Sunday, December 19th. Therefore, if Congress does not act pass a new funding measure by that date the federal government will be forced to shut down.

While there were critics of the lame duck session, many members of Congress argued that besides the CR, Congress had to use the session to pass an extension of unemployment benefits. Although states pay for the first 26 weeks of unemployment benefits, the federal government funds 34 to 53 weeks of "emergency benefits" and another 13 to 20 weeks of "extended benefits," thus allowing the long-term unemployed up to 99 weeks of benefits. Now that the measure has passed Congress can move on to completing the appropriations bill. Finding a compromise on the budget may prove a trickier task because any agreement will be tied to the politics of the November elections.

Because of the length of the discussion on the tax extensions, there is less time to debate and resolve differences for FY2011 budget. Time is on the side of the deficit hawks. The less time for a FY2011 debate, the more likely a short-term CR funding the government into January or February at the latest will be passed.

Congress has three options: pass a year-ling continuing resolution (CR), pass an omnibus bill which contains all 12 appropriations bills combined into one, or pass a short-term CR until the new Congress convenes in January.

The House passed a year-long CR and now the Senate must pass a bill which must then go to conference. The House bill keeps funding at the FY2010 level which is a cut in real dollars. The Senate tried to pass an omnibus bill with a slight increase in funding and approximately $8 billion in earmarks. Republicans prefer enacting a FY2011 spending bill that will only last through the end of January after they are in control of the House of Representatives. Republicans prefer to begin their charge to reduce Federal budget with current spending versus waiting for the FY 2012 budget. When they take control, Republicans are committed to changing the way appropriation bills are voted on in their chamber. They want to decide the budgets by agency versus bills grouped by committee jurisdiction.

If Republicans establish a new appropriations process, it will make it easier for Republicans to go after agencies they typically oppose like the departments of education, housing, Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. It will create open warfare in the House and gridlock with the Senate. Democrats have no interest in changing the way the Senate operates. As a result, negotiations to agree on appropriations bills will be contentious and time-consuming. It will also make it harder for advocates to defend the programs administered by these departments. These programs will be under greater scrutiny and become more vulnerable during a time of economic distress.

Housing, education and other programs to benefit the needy have wide, but not deep support in Congress. Consequently, it is “easier” to justify cutting these programs than it is to cut funding for defense, veterans or agriculture subsidies.

When Pork Is Not a Pig

The desire of conservative activists in Congress to place a moratorium on earmarks has resulted in some interesting measures under consideration to ensure representatives are bringing home the bacon without being accused of “pork barrel” spending. House Republicans are discussing ways to redefine earmark spending to get around the ban singled for by the conservative wing of the party. Veterans Members of Congress are concerned that local projects will not be funded as a result.

As reported by Politico there is discussion underway to possibly exempt certain projects such as transportation and water. This will allow members to demonstrate to their constituents they are addressing pressing local needs. Even Tea Party leader Michele Bachman (R-MN) is against an outright ban. It is interesting how quickly the newcomers are conforming to the Washington way of doing business. The newcomers are quickly learning political rhetoric gives way to practical reality of politics after the election. It will be interesting to monitor this development next Congress.

The Spirit of the Deficit Commission’s Final Report Will Hover over Congress Next Year

In spite of the failure of the Deficit Reduction Commission to have a super majority approve the recommendations submitted to tackle the nation’s growing debt, the spotlight is now on congressional leaders to make the politically difficult decisions in the next session of identifying program cuts and tax increase to reduce the nation’s long-term debt.

The commission was three votes short of the majority needed to force Congress to act on its final recommendations which included cuts to popular initiatives like the mortgage deduction, defense programs, reductions in entitlement benefits and targeted tax increases.

The commission’s failure to secure 14 votes does little to minimize the impact their recommendations will have on funding issues the next Congress. Republicans campaigned on the promise they would control government spending and make the tough decisions necessary to reduce the Federal debt. The report stated unequivocally that drastic measure must be taken to address the nation’s current fiscal situation.

The Commission, co-chaired by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson (WY) and Erskine Bowles, the former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, submitted its report with the belief that the nation must directly confront the real issues which must be addressed. They took their charge to heart and did not spare any program or department or allow sentimentality influence their recommendations. The recommendations included:

1. Enact tough discretionary spending caps and provide $200 billion in illustrative domestic and defense savings in 2015.

2. Pass tax reform that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the code, broadens the base, and reduces the deficit.

3. Address the “Doc Fix” (a scheduled cut in Medicare payments to doctors) not through deficit spending but through savings from payment reforms, cost-sharing, and malpractice reform, and long-term measures to control health care cost growth.

4. Achieve mandatory savings from farm subsidies, military and civil service retirement.

5. Ensure Social Security solvency for the next 75 years while reducing poverty among seniors.

The panel’s emphasis on identifying a range of cuts to federal programs will draw a microscope around congressional action as it affects the deficit. For example, MSNBC’s First Read reported the irony that the cost of the agreement between Obama and Republicans - extending the tax cuts for two years, extending unemployment benefits and the other tax cuts in the agreement – will cost approximately $1 trillion which is more than the costs of the stimulus (approximately $800 billion).

It begs the question: how serious are both parties in reducing the deficit?

Interesting Read

Omnibus includes $8B in earmarks
By Scott Wong
Politico

The GOP Strategic Advantage
By Bill Connelly
Crystal Ball

2012 hopefuls challenged by tax deal
By Alexander Burns
Politico

Oversight Panel Slams Home-Rescue Efforts
By Jim Tankersley
National Journal

The Stages of Political Grief
By Charlie Cook
National Journal

Just weeks after 2010 election, Republicans lining up for 2012 Senate races
By Chris Cillizza
The Washington Post

In Entrepreneurship We Trust
By Alan McCormick
Forbes Magazine

Redistricting Reform is Tough Task Every Time
By Tricia Miller
Roll Call

Census Figures to Be Released Soon
By Kyle Trygstad
Roll Call

Wooing Joe Lieberman for 2012
By Manu Raju
Politico

Straight Talk on Immigration
By Ruben Navarrette
Real Clear Politics

Unusual methods helped ICE break deportation record, e-mails and interviews show
By Andrew Becker
Center for Investigative Reporting

Incoming GOP freshmen rapidly embracing big-money fundraisers
By Dan Eggen
The Washington Post

A Whole New Name Game
By Ianthe Jeanne Dugan
The Wall Street Journal

Pension Woes Prompt GOP Move
By Michael Corkery
The Wall Street Journal

Maybe the government would earn more of our trust if it leveled with us more and invaded our privacy less.
By Matthew Dowd
The National Journal

What the Bowles-Simpson plan left out
By Robert J. Samuelson
The Washington Post

Newt Gingrich's inner circle
By Chris Cillizza
The Washington Post

Mike Huckabee wants some respect
By Jonathan Martin & Ben Smith
Politico

House Rule
Will John Boehner control the Tea Party Congress?
by Peter J. Boyer
The New Yorker

2012 Hopefuls Gave Big to 2010 Candidates
Donation Strategies Differ for Palin, Pawlenty, Romney
By Steve Peoples
Roll Call

Tea Partyers Shredded Fundraising Playbook
By Steve Peoples
Roll Call Staff

First, Admit You Have a Problem
By Charlie Cook
The National Journal

Deficit Reduction Reports Hovers over Lame Duck Session

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:15:00 +0000

Amidst all of the drama within both parties – Tea Party versus establishment Republicans, liberals versus conservative/moderate Democrats, make no mistake the 800 pound gorilla settling in Washington is the draft report issued by the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. President Barack Obama creates the commission to seek recommendations on ways to reduce Federal spending and control future deficits.

The Commission, co-chaired by Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson (WY) and Erskine Bowles, the former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, submitted a preliminary report with five basic recommendations:

1. Enact tough discretionary spending caps and provide $200 billion in illustrative domestic and defense savings in 2015.

2. Pass tax reform that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the code, broadens the base, and reduces the deficit.

3. Address the “Doc Fix” not through deficit spending but through savings from payment reforms, cost-sharing, and malpractice reform, and long-term measures to control health care cost growth.

4. Achieve mandatory savings from farm subsidies, military and civil service retirement.

5. Ensure Social Security solvency for the next 75 years while reducing poverty among seniors.

In issuing the report, the co-chairs did not spare any program or department in the Federal government nor did the commission concern itself with the political ramifications of the recommendations made. For example, it calls for cuts to military, some paring down of the mortgage income deduction, some tax increases and measures to control Social Security benefits.

To no one surprise, it was met with bipartisan denunciation; however, both co-chairs stressed the importance of being honest with the measures needed to control Federal spending and future deficits. The current economic situation, the election results and this report is going to finally force the powers that be in Washington to confront the hard reality of what it will take to turn the nation’s financial situation around.

It is going to be interesting to watch the debate unfold on controlling federal spending. While Republican calls for reduced spending have been focused on domestic programs the truth is ALL federal spending must be curtailed to some degree to contain the spiraling deficits. Both parties are to blame for the deficit and both parties and now must agree to the pain required to fix it.

Housing Budget Unclear

Congress has returned for its lame duck session with a final decision on this year’s Federal budget still unclear. The debate over the future of the Bush tax cuts is generating the bulk of media attention; however, local providers of housing and community development programs still don’t know what their budget will be for next year. While there will be fireworks aplenty, expect Congress to reach an agreements on a number of issues including some type of extension of the Bush tax cuts and a temporary spending measure to keep the Federal government operating through the early part of 2011.

These programs will face an uphill fight next year securing any increases and will likely struggle to maintain current levels. Fiscal conservatives will seek cuts to domestic programs and will probably target public housing dollars. Vouchers will be affected as well; however, private landlords will carry enough sway to keep any cuts to a minimum. During downturns in the economy, landlords like participating in the voucher programs because of the certainty that the government will pay a large portion of the rent. When the economy improves some landlords may be less committed because of the higher rents they can secure in the open market.

Congressional Panel Urges Review of Factors Affecting Foreclosure Crisis

A congressional panel overlooking the mortgage irregularities in the foreclosure process is urging its colleague to review the situation closely to avoid greater damage to the financial markets. Examining the Consequences of Mortgage Irregularities for Financial Stability and Foreclosure Mitigation states that financial institutions and securitization servicers should not proceed with foreclosures unless all of the proper documents are in order.

It has been found that banks are foreclosing properties without proper documentation casting doubts about the legitimacy of the actions. There is uncertainty over whether in some cases banks had the authority to foreclose. This has also raised questions over who has ownership of the loan and the property in question.

The panel calls on policymakers to monitor what is occurring and offered these recommendations:

• The Department of Treasury should closely monitor the impact of foreclosure irregularities.

• Treasury and the Federal Reserve should stress test banks to evaluate their ability to weather a crisis related to mortgage irregularities.

• Policymakers should evaluate system-wide consequences of documentation irregularities.

The panel is concerned that the implications of the confusion of foreclosures could reverberate to banks of all sizes. As disturbing as the potential implications of documentation irregularities may be for “too big to fail” banks, the consequences would not be limited to the largest banks in the market. Other concerns of the panel include not placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at too much risk to underwrite these mortgages; homeowners losing confidence in the housing market; and, the public may lose faith in due process.

Interesting Reads

Housing and Community Development

GOP targets mortgage bailouts
By Sean Lengell
The Washington Times

Foreclosure takes toll on increasing number of children
By Dina El Boghdady
The Washington Post

Lame-Duck Game of Chicken
By David Broder
The Washington Post

Will Republicans Get Serious on Spending?
By Steve Chapman
The Chicago Tribune

Guns used to kill police officers: Where they come from and how they get in the hands of criminals
By Cheryl W. Thompson
The Washington Post

Politics

A Forecast That Obama Could Love
By Jeff Sommer
The New York Times

Obama Returns to an Unpredictable Congress
By Jackie Calmes and David M. Herszenhorn
The New York Times

Sober suggestions from Obama's debt commission
By David Broder
The Washington Post

Five myths about Sarah Palin
By Matthew Continetti
The Washington Post

The Palin Network
By Robert Draper
The New York Times Magazine

Political divide between coasts and Midwest deepening, midterm election analysis shows
By T.W. Farnam
The Washington Post

Romney, Weighing Run, Leans on State PACs
By Michael Luo
The New York Times

Murkowski victory a stinging rebuke to Palin and extreme partisans
By John P. Avlon
CNN Contributor

Junior Democrats in Senate seek to change the way chamber does business
By Shailagh Murray
The Washington Post

Truth or Consequences
By Evan Thomas
Newsweek

On to the Next Round

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 23:34:00 +0000

The election is over and now both Republicans and Democrats will chart a course over the next two years with the intent to win the 2012 presidential elections. Since only one side can win the ultimate prize, the White House, drama will take center stage in Washington, DC. Here is what we know about the election:

The Republicans elected in both the House and Senate are more fiscally conservative than their predecessors and are chomping at the bit for a show down with President Barack Obama to reduce Federal spending. Republicans in both chambers are talking tough about cutting non-defense programs to the 2008 levels. Republicans have been soliciting recommendations from the public on which programs to cut. The site, America Speaking Out, allows citizens to recommend where they would like to see funding cut. The recommendations from citizens will only strengthen their resolve to reduce federal spending.

Republicans must assess how to incorporate these conservatives into a broader agenda which achieves substantive results. If they can accomplish that, they set the stage for their party presidential nominee to have a chance at victory in the 2012 presidential election. It will not be easy. Pursuing a balance budget agenda will be difficult for Republicans to accomplish if only domestic programs are under consideration for reduction. To truly reduce federal spending, there is a consensus that cuts to defense spending, Medicare and Social Security must be included. These are popular programs with strong voting constituencies who have historically punished politicians who broach cuts to these programs. However, some Republicans, such as Senator-elect Ron Paul (R-KY), have said those are on the table for discussion. This can become a dicey issue for Republicans to navigate and could be their Waterloo.

Republicans increased their numbers in the Senate to be major players in any legislative initiative up for discussion in that chamber. If consensus can’t be reached on issues in the Senate, gridlock will occur. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader, has stated the Republicans number one agenda is to ensure Obama does not get reelected. That does set the stage for compromise; it only sharpens the ideological divide.

The remaining Democrats in the House and Senate are more liberal as a whole. Many of the party’s losses were in districts held by conservative Democrats. This reduces the number of “moderate” members willing to compromise with Republicans on issues. It also limits the number of Democrats Republicans can target for support on issues such as reducing federal spending. We can expect Democrats to now become the united opposition Republicans were over the last two years.

Republicans gained enough governor seats and captured state legislatures to reshape the future congressional map, increase the likelihood Republicans will maintain their current numbers in Congress and make the president’s road to reelection a bumpier one. Governors are heavily involved in the redistricting process in most states. Expect future Congress’ to be more conservative. Additionally, in controlling the political operations in their state, Republican governors can create structural barriers to deliver benefits to voters and campaign effectively. The changing demographics in many states also illustrate the difficult path Obama must follow to get reelected. States Obama carried in 2008 stand to lose seven seats in the House meaning there will be fewer electoral votes available in those states.

What does this mean?

Legislative action will be the exception while gridlock will be the rule. The political and philosophical make up of each party in Congress creates a bad mix for compromise. Tea Party conservatives are adamant about reducing federal spending and are willing to buck the party leadership to accomplish that goal. They are equally adamant about not compromising with Obama. Any sign of compromise by the Republican leadership will be met with revolt from these individuals. The House Republican leadership has more leeway to not compromise; however, Republicans can’t be viewed by the voters as obstructionist. They need substantive accomplishments to have any credibility and sustain momentum going into the 2012 election. The Senate is the chamber where compromise must be reached but it is unlikely either party will be able to reach consensus on fiscal issues. With all eyes focused on the 2012 presidential election, the ability and/or failure to compromise is risky for both parties.

Funding for existing programs will be reduced or eliminated. Funding for new initiatives is probably unrealistic unless it enjoys strong bipartisan support. The election results demonstrated the American public is not supportive of increased federal funding for new initiatives when the economy is faulting, jobs are being lost and homes are being foreclosed. Any initiative undertaken must focus on economic growth and will probably come at the expense of other programs. President Obama’s support of a three-year freeze on domestic spending and his willingness to seek further cuts leaves little room for negotiation if defense, Social Security and Medicare are not on the table. Even if they are included, other programs will bear a disproportionate burden of cuts due to the popularity of the big three program.

Expect an increase in demand for services provided by the government, nonprofits, churches and other private groups. Until the economy improves the demand for services will increase with fewer resources to provide those services. More people will need assistance to offset long-term job loss, foreclosure, underemployment, health care needs and other unforeseen situations. When Obama took office most economic experts did not expect the economy to turn around until 2012 at the earliest. But when the economy does improve a combination factors will likely keep wages down. First, fewer jobs will be available. As a result, it will continue to be a buyer’s market. In other words, there will be more workers than the number of available jobs. Older workers who lost their retirement money need to remain in the workforce for an extended period of time. Second, the level of internet purchasing will reduce the need for retail employment which is typically the entry point for young and low-skilled workers and increasing a source of income for the elderly. Third, housing prices will remain deflated reducing the principle vehicle used to create wealth in this country.

What can be done in the interim?

Organizations dependent on government and private funding will need to reevaluate its operations and make hard decisions about structure and scope of services. These groups must decide if portions of its work should continue as is, be consolidated with another program or be eliminated. For nonprofits, in particular, this will be a difficult task. Nonprofits are mission driven; however, economic pressures will force them to make these choices. Demands will increase while available revenue will probably continue to decrease.

The fundraising model currently employed by non-profits in particular needs to be revisited. During a time of fiscal austerity, groups which can demonstrate tangible results will increase the group’s chances of securing support from funders. It will be critical for nonprofits to work with existing funding sources to identify ways in which it can remain attractive to private funders. Nonprofits and public entities that can successfully demonstrate its recipients, or clients, are achieving self-sufficiency as a result of its programs will prove to be more successful in the future.

Look for funding formulas for state and local governments to be revisited as well. The Census will cause the government to revisit how funds are distributed. Deeper targeting of the resources meant to low and moderate income households could be both good and bad to entities serving these households. Changes to funding formulas could create strange bedfellows in certain parts of the country.

Interesting Read

For Obama, the daunting challenges of 2012 start at once
After a tough midterm election, the president must focus on righting the economy and recovering the voting coalition he has lost if he hopes to avoid becoming a one-term president.
By Peter Nicholas and Christi Parsons,
Los Angeles Times

Republicans prepare to take power
By Jake Sherman & Richard E. Cohen
Politico

The Republican Landslide
By Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard

Fasten Your Seat Belts: Campaign 2012 Is Here
By Jim O'Sullivan
National Journal

Why? Why? Why?
Was it a referendum? A plunge after a surge? A search for political balance? Yep.
By Charlie Cook
National Journal

Wave gives GOP upper hand in drawing election map
GOP enjoys big gains in Great Lakes region as redistricting begins
By Tom Curry
MSNBC

Republicans signal a hard-line stance after election success
By Tom Cohen
CNN

Hispanics emerge as key 2012 wild card
By Ben Smith & Carrie Budoff Brown
Politico

The Mama Grizzly Scorecard
by Shushannah Walshe
The Daily Beast

Republicans tear up President Obama's map
By Ben Smith & Jonathan Martin
Politico

People

The rise and fall of Nancy Pelosi
By John Bresnahan
Politico

John Boehner inherits troubled House
By Richard E. Cohen
Politico

Mitch McConnell's power expands greatly in minority
By Manu Raju
Politico

5 myths about George W. Bush
By Julian Zelizer
The Washington Post

Don't underestimate Palin for 2012 run
By Ed Rollins
CNN

DeMint: 'I Think I've Found My Role'
National Journal

Bachmann to Seek GOP Conference Chair
The Minnesota Republican and tea party favorite says she will challenge the leadership's choice.
By Billy House
National Journal

One Chapter Ends, Another Begins

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 02:51:00 +0000

The drama surrounding the current election season will come to a close November 2nd and the ensuing results will usher in the next chapter of our country’s political history. Beyond the numbers, time will tell which political party, which individuals and which movement was victorious. However, for the country to expect anything less than more partisanship is naïve and unrealistic.

Post-Election Partisanship

The partisanship will begin the moment the results are tallied. If predictions are correct, history will stay true to form and the party of the president in power, Democrats, will suffer losses. The size and severity of those losses are debatable at this time. The estimate of Democratic losses in the House of Representatives ranges from 40 to 75. It is possible, but unlikely, Republicans will gain the 10 seats necessary to control the Senate but it is not unrealistic for them to gain as many as eight seats. One of those seats could be the one held by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) the current Senate Majority Leader.

Posturing will begin the minute the polls close. Republicans will make it clear they intend to put a halt to or delay any of President Barack Obama’s initiatives. Fireworks will begin to fly during the congressional lame duck session which is expected to begin approximately a week after the election. Among the issues to be debated during that session is the extension of the Bush tax cuts, extending unemployment benefits and passing a 2011 budget for federal agencies. Republicans will use this session to flex their muscle and lay the groundwork for next year’s congressional session.

Gridlock will be the rule not the exception

Don’t expect much congressional action next year or during the early months of 2012. Make no mistake, beginning November 3rd every political action is geared to building momentum for Democrats to keep or for Republicans to reclaim, the White House. Nothing will come easy for either party as each tries to exert its will on the other.

In victory, the Republicans will have more to lose than the president. They contend to know how to right the ship they helped steer aground. They will no longer be able to simply be obstructionist but must become legislators. In legislating they will need to compromise which may not sit well the increased number of “true” conservatives, including Tea Party candidates, expected to march into office. There is enough infighting within the party to cause trouble for itself as it navigates an agenda for the next year or two. Realistically, Congress will have 2011 and the first three to four months of 2012 to enact legislative initiatives. In the spring of 2012 presidential campaigning will be in full swing.

The country will learn a great deal about President Obama’s leadership abilities, his toughness and political astuteness in the next 12 to 15 months. How he handles himself will determine his prospects for reelection. If he handles himself well, he will have the party behind him heading into the reelection campaign of 2012. If not, he will likely be challenged from within the party.

State Elections are Where the Action Is

Keep your eyes on the state elections. The party in control of the statehouse will heavy influence the political representation of that state for the next 10 years. The future composition of Congress and the federal largess enjoyed by congressional districts hang in the balance of these elections.

Interesting Read

Late Senate polls show GOP trending up slightly
By Aaron Blake
The Washington Post

Spin cycle: What will top Dems say?
By Alexander Burns & Jonathan Martin
Politico

The Five Faulty Theories that Led Obama and Democrats to Disaster
By Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard

The Next Two Years
By William Kristol
The Weekly Standard

Next for GOP leaders: Stopping Sarah Palin
By Mike Allen & Jim Vandehei
Politico

Sarah Palin: Thin-skinned, smartly strategic (or both)?
By Chris Cillizza
The Washington Post

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:14:00 +0000

Leading up to the election, AVIEWFROMDC will provide its readers with some articles of interest about the election:

2010 Election

GOP poised to win redistricting supremacy, too
Down-ticket races could dilute Democrats' influence for next 10 years
By Jennifer C. Kerr
The Associated Press

The stimulus worked — but for which party?
'The failed stimulus' has become a Republican mantra this election season
By Tom Curry
MSNBC National affairs writer

Election Day could bring historic split: Democrats lose House, keep Senate
By Karen Tumulty
The Washington Post

Tea Party Already Shapes '12 Race
By Peter Wallsten
The Wall Street Journal

Gauging the scope of the tea party movement in America
By Amy Gardner
The Washington Post

Tea party groups say media has been fair, poll shows
By Amy Gardner
The Washington Post

Yes, They Can
By Charles Dharapak
Associated Press

In Nevada, it's can't live with Harry Reid and can't live without him
By Shailagh Murray
The Washington Post

Pro-Republican Groups Prepare Big Push at End of Races
By Jim Rutenberg
The New York Times

The rise, fall and rise of John Boehner
By Paul Kane
The Washington Post

Post 2010 Election

Can GOP leaders keep the peace?
By Jake Sherman
Politico

2012: How Sarah Barracuda Becomes President
Why do you think Barack Obama is being so nice to Michael Bloomberg?
By John Heilemann
New York Magazine

Obama’s Playbook After Nov. 2
By Sheryl Gaystolerb
The New York Times

Q&A With Newt Gingrich
By Peter Wallsten
The Wall Street Journal

Group Plans to Keep Pressure on Newly Elected Conservatives
By Jennifer Levitz and Douglas A. Blackmon
The New York Times

Election Outcome Still in Doubt

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 03:49:00 +0000

With the election fast approaching, its outcome, and the subsequent political climate of the nation, is still in doubt. While the specific results are yet to be determined, there are still some predictions we can make about the aftermath of November 2, 2010.

1. There will be a number of surprises on Election Day. Expect the unexpected.

2. Whichever party “wins” November 2, it will overplay the significance of its victory. Historically, the party of the president in office loses congressional seats in the first mid-term elections. The fact of the loss is almost certain. What is not known is how big the loss will be.

3. Very little will be accomplished in Congress as Republicans seek to weaken President Barack Obama in the attempt to reclaim the White House in 2012.

4. The most significant results of the elections on the state level will be the real story of November. The party in power in the statehouse controls the process to redistrict congressional seats. That party also can influence voting patterns in presidential elections. In swing states like California, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Florida, controlling the governorship could prove beneficial in 2012.

Here are some observations to keep in mind as we draw closer to Election Day:

Democrats: It is estimated that 100 House Democratic incumbents are at risk of losing their election. Prognosticators estimate that Democrats will in fact lose from 45 to 75 of those seats and, therefore, Republicans will win control of the House. There is a chance Democrats will retain control of the House but, if that occurs, they will retain it by a small margin. It is unlikely that Democrats will lose control of the Senate but their margin will diminish by as many as seven or eight seats.

It appears the traditional Democratic constituency, unions, women, minorities and liberals, are becoming more engaged in this election cycle which gives the party some hope it can minimize its losses. The Associated Press is reporting that in some states Democrats have submitted more early ballots than Republicans. In Iowa, Maryland, North Carolina, Louisiana, and in Nevada’s Clark County (where two-thirds of the votes in 2008 originated) Democrats have the lead.
Is it too late for Democrats? It may be but it is still too early to tell and a lot can happen between now and Election Day. After the election, President Obama will need to develop a strategy to lead his party against a Republican Party smelling blood.

Republicans: Republicans are confident of a resounding victory this November. They are so confident that current House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is promising choice committee assignments to candidates to help boost their election prospects. Republicans are not only confident they will take control of the House but also functional control of the Senate. They are already developing strategies to confront the White House with subpoenas, hearings, proposals to cut funding for the health care bill, etc.

The Republican Party needs to be careful not to repeat the strategy of the House under the leadership of Newt Gingrich which led to the shutting down of the government. That strategy turned the public against the Republicans and eventually led to Gingrich’s downfall. They do need to temper their confidence. There is a chance Democrats will either retain control of the House or lose the House by a slight margin. Anything less than a resounding victory will punch a hole in the sails of Republicans.

Tea Party candidates: Assuming they win their elections, they will be a problem for Republicans specifically, and the Congress generally. They will be forced to turn the anger that elected them into a governing style that actually accomplishes something substantively. They can be elected in sizeable numbers to continue to force Republicans to the right. How their approach translates into a governing style will be interesting to watch. Until then, there is the real possibility that their candidates will implode on the campaign trail. Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Ron Paul and Joe Miller have each stumbled badly on the campaign trail.

State Races: This is the real story of the election. Republicans are poised to make major gains in gubernatorial races. The party controlling the statehouse has the power to influence, approve or veto redistricting plans which don’t meet its satisfaction. The reshaping of congressional seats helps to determine who is elected to the House of Representatives.

Nick Ayers, executive director of the National Republican Governors, told CNN redistricting could result in 15 to 20 House seats changing parties. He told CNN that his message to Republicans is, "The only way to prevent Democrats from controlling an unfair process is to win the governors' seats where redistricting is up."

Keep an eye on Proposition 20 in California. This ballot initiative, if approved, would remove elected representatives from being involved in the redistricting process. California has historically been known as a “bell weather” state, meaning what happens in that state tends to reverberate to other parts of the country.

2010 Census: The results of the 2010 census, while technically not an issue on Election Day, is a major factor hanging over the state races. The census results will influence redistricting decisions. Some states, like Pennsylvania and New York, are expected to lose congressional seats. The party in power will seek to redraw lines with the intent to protect its own, but the loss of one congressional seat could mean a reduction of millions of Federal dollars to that state.

Also, don’t be surprised if there is a significant increase of Latinos in states where Hispanic representation has been historically low. Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Education Fund, said he believes the story of the 2010 census will be the rise of the Latino South.

Economic issues: The economy, tax cuts, earmarks, reducing the deficit and the cost of health care will dominate the discussion of the new Congress. It will likely result in gridlock the next two years. The campaign rhetoric will be over and the elected officials will finally have to govern. Expect political realities to influence congressional decisions. For example, as much as some Republicans are calling an end to earmarks, congressional members of both parties realize the importance of “bringing home the bacon.” Most economic experts expect the economy to rebound in 2012 which will help President Obama in his reelection campaign.

Latino voters: Keep an eye on the Latino (Hispanic) vote. All indications are that unions, African Americans and liberals are getting motivated to go to the polls; however, the mainstream media has made assumptions that Latinos will stay home because of the failure of the administration to pass immigration reform. Vargas has criticized a recent ad in Nevada calling for Latinos not to vote. Vargas said Latino voters are fully engaged and prepared to assert itself in November.

Latino Vote expected to grow 17 percent in November

Nearly one million new Latino voters are expected to participate in this year’s midterm election representing a 17 percent increase above the total that voted in the 2006 midterm election, according to a report released October 19 in Washington, DC.

The NALEO Educational Fund estimates that 6.5 million Latinos will vote this November. Vargas states that Latinos are fully engaged this election cycle in spite of reports in the mainstream media indicating Hispanics will not vote in large numbers this fall.

“The Latino vote is fully engaged and ready to vote,” said Vargas. “Our polling and outreach shows Latinos voting participation will likely surpass our projections.” The NALEO Educational Fund is the nation's leading non-partisan, non-profit organization that facilitates full Latino participation in the American political process, from citizenship to public service.

Vargas said Latinos have been receiving the bulk of their information from Spanish-language media which is more involved in reporting the issues of concern to Latinos than the mainstream media. Vargas’ group has partnered with a number of other organizations to launch a campaign to get 250,000 low propensity voters to become engaged and vote. The campaign consists of national Latino advocacy organizations, leading Spanish-language media partners, and local community based organizations (CBOs). They are committed to increasing Latino participation using a multi-layered approach. They are reaching out by utilizing the Spanish-language media, nonprofits, the internet, etc.

Vargas expects Latinos to have a significant impact in a number of races. He said that in races for the U.S. House of Representatives, the number of Latinos in Congress could increase by as many as three:

• Washington State, Representative Jaime Herrera (R) is currently running ahead in her bid
for that state’s 3rd congressional district, and could become the first Hispanic of either major
party to represent the Evergreen State in Congress.

• In Florida, the seat held by U.S. Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R) in the 25th congressional district
could become a win for the Democrats if former Obama administration official Joe García
wins his bid. That race is currently a toss-up.

• In Texas, businessman Bill Flores (R) is locked in a very tight race with Rep. Chet Edwards
(D) in the 17th congressional district.

Vargas also pointed to one of the nation’s most closely watched contests for Senate in Florida which includes a Latino candidate:

• Former Florida Speaker of the House Marco Rubio (R) is locked in a tight, three-way race
with Governor Charlie Crist (I) and U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) to fill the seat once held
by retired Sen. Mel Martínez (R). Latinos represent almost 13% of registered voters in the
Sunshine State, and are a key constituency in this closely watched race.

In statewide races, Latinos are running in several of the most competitive races in the country.

• In New Mexico, Doña Ana County (Las Cruces) District Attorney Susana Martínez (R) is in
a close race with Lt. Gov. Diane Denish (D) in the gubernatorial race.

• In Nevada, federal judge and former Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval (R) is running
ahead of Clark County Commission Chair Rory Reid (D) and could become the state’s first
Latino governor.

Vargas further states that Latino candidates running for state Senate and state Houses nationwide are expected to make gains; nine seats in the state upper chambers (from 65 to 74) and five in the state lower chambers (from 179 to 184). Latinos are running for top positions in 41 states throughout the nation – which shows political progress in both the traditional Latino population centers, and in regions with emerging Latino communities. In this year’s election -- both as candidates and as voters -- Latinos are poised to play a key role in shaping the nation’s political landscape.

NBC Identifies Potential Leaders in Light of Republican Victory on Election Day

MSNBC’s First Read took a look at the Republican men and women who would likely assume the leadership positions and committee gavels if Republicans take back the House. The leadership, per NBC’s Luke Russert reporting, is expected to be the following:

Speaker: John Boehner (R-OH)

Majority leader: Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Majority whip: Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) or Pete Sessions (R-TX) GOP conference chair: Mike Pence (R-IN) GOP conference vice-chair: Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA) NRCC chair: Sessions or McCarthy

The men and women who would be House GOP chairs: And, per NBC’s Russert, here are the people who are likely to become the committee chairs:

Appropriations: Harold Rogers (R-KY) or Jerry Lewis (R-CA) Armed Services: Buck McKeon (R-CA)
Budget: Paul Ryan (R-WI)
Education and Labor: John Kline (R-MN)
Energy and Commerce: Fred Upton (R-MI) or John Shimkus (R-IL) Financial Services: Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), or Ed Royce (R-CA) Foreign Affairs: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) Homeland Security: Peter King (R-NY)
Judiciary: Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Oversight and Government Reform: Darrell Issa (R-CA)
Rules: David Dreier (R-CA)
Standards of Official Conduct/Ethics: Jo Bonner (R-AL) Transportation and Infrastructure: John Mica (R-FL) Ways and Means: Dave Camp (R-MI)

If Republicans win back the Senate in November, NBC’s Ken Strickland has put together this list of the likely GOP Senate leadership:

Majority leader: Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Assistant majority leader (whip): Jon Kyl (R-AZ) Conference chair: Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Conference vice-chair: John Barrasso (R-WY) Policy committee chair: John Thune (R-SD) NRSC chair: John Cornyn (R-TX) President pro tempore: Dick Lugar (R-IN)

The men and women who would be Senate GOP chairs: And, per NBC’s Ken Strickland, here are the likely GOP Senate chairs:

Appropriations: Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Armed Services: John McCain (R-AZ)
Banking: Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Budget: Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Commerce: Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Energy and Natural Resources: Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) or Richard Burr (R-NC) Environment and Public Works: Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Finance: Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Foreign Relations: Dick Lugar (R-IN)
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Judiciary: Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Homeland Security and Government Affairs: Susan Collins (R-ME)

Interesting Read

2010 Election

Election Day could bring historic split: Democrats lose House, keep Senate
By Karen Tumulty
The Washington Post

More Democrats casting early ballots
By Nancy Benac and Liz Sidoti
Associated Press

The early vote: Signs of GOP passion
By Molly Ball
Politico

The new political map: Welcome to 2004
By Jonathan Martin & Alex Isenstadt
Politico

Every big Senate race just got closer
By Alexander Burns
Politico

Barack Obama struggles to win women back
By Carol E. Lee & Glenn Thrush
Politico

Democrats face power struggle
By Manu Raju
Politico

Five governors races to watch
By Chris Cilliza
The Washington Post

Hispanic organizers don't see Democrats' funding
By Carrie Budoff Brown
Politico

How GOP could win the 10 seats needed to take back Senate
By Chris Cillizza
The Washington Post

Can Democrats and Republicans work together after the election?
By Tom Cohen
CNN

Black Turnout Will Be Crucial for Democrats on Election Day
By Kevin Sack
The Washington Post

The landscape as the final midterm sprint begins
By Dan Balz
The Washington Post

GOP poised for big election gains
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Black voters may be just as engaged as they were in 2008, polls show
By Krissah Thompson and Nia-Malika Henderson
The New York Times

Tea Party Set to Win Enough Races for Wide Influence
By Kate Zernike
The New York Times

Why Business Doesn't Trust the Tea Party
By Lisa Lerer and John McCormick
Bloomberg Business Week

In Wisconsin, the 2010 campaign story distilled
By Jim Vandehei
Politico

Democrats fear wipeout for women
By Marin Cogan
Politico

GOP Tries to Capitalize on Expanding House Field
By John McArdle
CQ-Roll Call

Year of the missing candidate
By Jonathan Martin
Politics

People of 2010 Election

President Obama’s white working-class problem
By Glenn Thrush
Politico

Education of a President
By Peter Baker
The New York Times Magazine

Boehner’s Path to Power Began in Southern Ohio
By Jennifer Steinhauer and Carl Hulse
The New York Times

Five myths about Sarah Palin
By Matthew Continetti
The Washington Post

Bond With Past Foe Is Fodder for Attack on Cuomo
By David M. Halbfinger
The New York Times

Newt Gingrich’s rhetoric will backfire
By Joe Scarborough
Politico

State Elections

The Sweep: Governors' races are 'main event' in 2010
By Jessica Yellin
CNN

Housing and Community Development

Looking Ahead
BY Jacob Gaffney
Housingwire Magazine

As G.O.P. Seeks Spending Cuts, Details Are Scarce
By David M. Herszenhorn
The New York Times

Florida community feels ripple effects as paperwork issues stall foreclosures
By Brady Dennis
The Washington Post

From This House, a National Foreclosure Freeze
By David Streitfield
The New York Times

Lack of proper mortgage paper trail could leave big banks reeling again
By Ariana Eunjung Cha and Jia Lynn Yang
The Washington Post

The Political Rumble Over Public Pension Costs
By Ben Elgin, Chad Terhune, Christopher Palmeri and Dunstan McNichol
Bloomberg Business Week

Interesting Reads

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:46:00 +0000

The Midterm Election of ‘62: A Real “October Surprise”
By Rhodes Cook
Crystal Ball

Report: Fla. adds 2 seats, N.Y. loses
By Richard E. Cohen
Politico

If Voters Choose Divided Power, What Then?
By Morton M. Kondracke
Roll Call

What to watch as Rahm Emanuel leaves
By Glenn Thrush & Kendra Marr
Politico

The GOP's 'Pledge to America': a closer look at the details
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post

After 2 turbulent years, officials assess TARP
By Brady Dennis
The Washington Post

The Secret World of Extreme Militias
By Barton Gellman
Time Magazine

Glenn Beck is obsessed with Hitler and Woodrow Wilson. (I'm just saying.)
By Dana Milbank
The Washington Post

Drama Surrounds November Election

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:33:00 +0000

We at Viewfromdc want to thank Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and the Republican Party for the political theater known as the November election which has engulfed the country. Not even Shakespeare, Twain or Hemingway could have written a better drama.

As we begin to head into the home stretch toward the November election, there are a few clear factors which will shape the outcome this fall:

1. Republicans are currently riding high with momentum. All predictions call for a major victory for Republicans, possibly of historic proportions.

2. The economy is the principal cause for the momentum enjoyed by Republicans. As unemployment continues to hover close to 10 percent, the electorate is increasingly disenchanted with the president’s economic policies.

3. Republicans still have not resolved their internal debate with the Tea Party movement which will have a significant impact on their ability to legislate. While the Tea Party candidate in Utah, Michael Lee, appears to be a shoo-in to win election to the Senate representing that state, other Tea Party candidates still must prove they can win a general election.

4. Democrats need to regroup and develop a post-election strategy which may include a change in leadership on Capitol Hill.

5. While the short-term prognosis for housing and community development programs looks good, there are ominous signs that cuts to vital housing programs could be a part of the future.

Let the Fighting Begin

The Republicans seem to be doing all they can to squander the good fortune the current political environment is affording them. All of the major polls and political experts agree Republicans are poised for major gains at the congressional and state level. However, intraparty fighting is bubbling to the surface as Tea Party activists have turned the primary season upside down by electing candidates of their choice to represent the party in a number of key states.

The latest beneficiary of the Tea Party support was Christine O’Donnell who won the Republican nomination for senator in Delaware. She will run against the Democratic nominee, Chris Coons. O’Donnell’s victory comes at the price of Castle, a popular former governor and most recently the House Representative for the State. He was expected to defeat Coons handily and be a key victory in the Republicans quest to regain the Senate. Now, there is significant doubt that O’Donnell can defeat Coons this fall.

O’Donnell’s victory follows the defeat of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) by Tea Party candidate, Joe Miller, in the Alaska primary. Murkowski is defying party officials and has decided to pursue retaining her seat as a write-in candidate. Even though the party’s leadership at the national level stands behind Miller, a civil war is brewing within the party’s rank and file.

While primary results are typically determined by the most ardent party supporters, the victory by Tea Party candidates in Nevada, Kentucky and Delaware raises a number of concerns for the Republican Party in the fall. First, it is unclear if Tea Party candidates can win in a general election. A win in the primary doesn’t guarantee a win in the fall. With the exception of Utah and possibly Kentucky, there is genuine concern about the ability of Tea Party candidates to connect with “mainstream voters.”

Second, if Republicans do win control of the Senate, how they govern will be interesting to watch. Republicans releases a Pledge to America promising to create jobs, cut taxes, curtail government spending and protect the country. The message sounds good but what does it mean when it is time to govern? Will they govern from a Tea Party platform of reducing Federal spending and reducing taxes which includes facing a showdown with President Obama? This approach will satisfy the conservative base in the party but will it have broad public appeal? The last time Republicans did this was in 1995 and it backfired on them. They received the bulk of the blame and galvanized support for then President Bill Clinton.

There are some Republicans and Tea Party supporters who relish the thought of a government shutdown. If Republicans regain either chamber, they will clearly have a major say in national policy for the next two years. This can be both a blessing and a curse to the party. They will be pressured by Tea Party supporters and their allies, to do all they can to reduce taxes and limit the Federal government’s authority. However, Republicans must be careful. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has indicated he believes the Tea Party supporters have the potential to shape policy on the Hill. If so, a repeat of 1995 is possible.

Republicans are becoming so confident they will regain control, they have already promised oversight hearings to embarrass the administration, will seek to defund the health care initiative and some members have openly discussed confronting the president into a showdown resulting in a shutdown of the Federal government. With Republican momentum on the upswing, the party is unanimous in opposing the president’s call to eliminate the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration for those earning above $250,000 a year.The president wants to make tax cuts for those earning under $250,000 permanent and allow the cuts for those above that figure to expire. To Republicans, it is all or nothing.

It will be interesting to watch the Tea Party approach to governing. Will they adhere to principles over platform or will they adjust to the realities of governing and compromise? There is a tension between the Tea Party's three principles (limited government, fiscal responsibility and free enterprise) and the realities of having to govern. If you are for fiscal responsibility and for tax cuts, then how will you move toward balancing the budget? What will you do about entitlement spending - Social Security and Medicare – which some of the Tea Party activists rely on? If you even try to close a post office, the rural limited government pro-fiscal responsibility folks in the community turn into rabid pro-jobs, cut-somebody-else activists.

From a purely political standpoint, the Tea Party's refusal to offer anything about the specifics is brilliant. It's like Obama's promise of change. The Tea Party wants to get their people elected first. But you can only be a radical outsider once. When the election is over, the coalition will break apart when the hard choices have to be made.

Tea Party Victory Could Help Housing Agenda

The election of Tea Party candidates could enhance efforts to enact legislation granting housing authorities’ greater flexibility in the administration of their programs. While national groups representing housing and community development issues have fared well in the bills up for approval, this year Congress approved cuts to food programs and has frozen future domestic spending. Additionally, the administration is proposing significant cuts to defense spending at levels unheard of in Washington. This does not bode well for increased funding for housing programs. It could; however, spur discussion on deregulation.

The three major public housing groups, Council of Large Public Housing Agencies (CLPHA), Pubic Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA) and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), have agreed upon a set of principles which they hope will guide Congress on deregulation efforts. It is unlikely anything of significance will happen so close to the election. This will create a lame duck session in mid to late November; during which it is unlikely much will get done except for a continuing resolution (CR). A CR is a temporary funding measure which keeps the government open for a fix period of time. In this case, the likely scenario is that Congress will pass a CR to keep the government funded until sometime in January.

All indications are a Republican Landslide

Major news organization s have prominently reported that recent polls show the president’s support declining while generic support for Republicans is gaining. This is not atypical for the mid-year election cycle of a first-term president, according to Larry Sabato and Mark Abromovitz of the University of Virginia’s Crystal Ball who have written extensively on this subject.

Sabato believes Republicans are in position to gain enough seats to take over the House and come within striking distance of reclaiming the Senate. Stu Rothenberg, a political analyst in Washington, DC, believes Republicans will reclaim both chambers. Charlie Cook, another highly regarded political analyst and author of the Cook Political Report, believes Republicans will fall short of controlling both chambers but he believes they will take the house.

Interesting Read

noreply@blogger.com (Julio Barreto) — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:38:00 +0000

Enclosed you will find a series of articles which help explain some of the political discourse which can change the dynamics in Washington this fall. Next week, we will include a posting which will summarize some of the key issues which will dominate DC in the fall.

Politics

Reagan's first term offers measuring stick for Obama
By Dan Balz
The Washington Post

Poll numbers in 1994, a bad year for Democrats, don't bode well for them in 2010
By Chris Cillizza
The Washington Post

In South Dakota, Democrats' own 'mama grizzly' vs. 'the next Sarah Palin'
By Philip Rucker
The Washington Post

Establishment candidates in Arizona, Florida rally against 'outsider' rivals
By Dan Balz
The Washington Post

10 things Obama must do in 10 weeks
By Kristi Keck
CNN

Obama's Four Disasters
Heckuva job, Mr. President.
By Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard

Does Barack Obama want to be re-elected in 2012?
Toby Harnden
The Telegraph

When Economic Policy Became Social Policy
By Peter J. Wallison
The American

In Florida, a Candidate Veers From Tea Party’s Script
By Jeff Zeleny
The New York Times

Race An Undeniable Aspect of Democrats’ Ethics Troubles
By Josh Kurtz
Congressional Quarterly

End run: Romney's crafty financing
By Jeanne Cummings & Andy Barr
Politico

Debate on taxes affects the savers
By Patrice Hill
The Washington Times

GOP takes harsher stance toward Islam
By Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman
Politico

Five myths about midterm elections
By Alan Abramowitz and Norman Ornstein
The Washington Post

With Obama address, Democrats revive specter of GOP threat to Social Security
By Michael D. Shear and Lori Montgomery
The Washington Post

Desperate Democrats pin their hopes on scary Republicans
By Dan Balz
The Washington Post

Prominent Democrats want Kennedy's widow to run for his Senate seat
By Mary Ann Akers and Philip Rucker
The Washington Post

Will its offbeat candidates hurt GOP?
By Alexander Burns
Politico

How Michael Bennet made it look easy
By David Catanese
Politico

Using the Generic Ballot to Forecast Gubernatorial Elections
Alan I. Abramowitz, Senior Columnist
Crystal Ball

Profiles

Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican
By John H. Richardson
Esquire Magazine

Lazio Finds an Issue in Furor Over Islamic Center
By Michael Barbaro
New York Times

Joe Sestak, the 60th Democrat
By Michael Sokolove
The New York Times

The most powerful Republican in politics
By Jim Vandehei, Andy Barr & Kenneth P. Vogel
Politico

Thank You for Not Screaming
By Lisa Depaulo
GQ Magazine

The Making of Andrew Cuomo
By Jonathan Mahler
The New York Times

Housing and Community Development

Housing Fades as a Means to Build Wealth, Analysts Say
By David Streitfeld
New York Times

Kill Fannie, Freddie
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff

Rovian immigration fallacy
By Tom Garcia
The Washington Times