Login to Change.org
Use Facebook to connect with friends and mobilize your social network.
Create an Account
Kathryn Baer
Washington, DC
I'm an independent consultant policy research, analysis and communications. I've worked for nonprofit organizations, government agencies, a Member of Congress and a major global corporation.
In addition to for-fee services, I provide voluntary support for organizations that advocate on behalf of homeless and other poor people in Washington, D.C., both directly and through my blog.
Recent Activity
-
Kathryn signed the petition | -
Kathryn commented on the article |The blog isn't about Poverty in America any more. It's about homelessness and labor rights (a generous construction of what's lately been all about WalMart) in New York City. I don't believe that the petition focus is entirely responsible for this, though it has played a part. Other criteria for postings — and bloggers — went into effect at the same time.
I posted some thoughts about these on my own poverty blog, http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/is-federal-level-advocacy-disempowering/
Perhaps they will seem merely sour grapes. But given what Spencer is saying about the Gay Rights blog, I don't think so.
-
Kathryn commented on the article |I don't agree that "wasteful spending" is the main factor in the projected deficit. Economists generally agree that the most significant factor is the rising cost of health care. Also a major factor are tax preferences, i.e., the plethora of incentives and credits in the tax code, plus the Bush-era tax cuts that were recently extended.
We would have more than enough money to adequately fund HUD's affordable housing programs if we would address these factors—and the very high costs of defense, due partly to the wars you refer to.
-
Kathryn commented on the article |You're right to call attention to the pending funding cuts in Congress, Diane. The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee has told the subcommittee for Transportation/HUD to come up with cuts that would reduce funding for the remainder of this year by more than 26%.
Much more is at stake here than an extension of HPRRP. Even funding at the current level would probably mean the loss of some housing vouchers. I see that Eric Sheptock has done a posting about this threat. I would guess that regular funding for shelters and other homelessness services would also be affected.
There are even greater long-term threats developing on the Senate side. I've reviewed two of them on my blog at http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/shared-opportunity-economic-security-in-the-bulls-eye-on-capitol-hill/
You know that I've long supported a realistic definition of "homelessness." But right now, I believe the most urgent thing is to tell our elected representatives in Congress not to savage the key programs low-income people depend on.
The Half in Ten coalition has an editable form letter that we can e-mail to our Senators. The URL is http://www2.americanprogress.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=114
Those who work for organizations that serve and/or advocate for low-income people can also join the fight by signing on to a very good statement of basic principles developed by a new coalition called SAVE (Securing America's Values and Economy) for All. The principles and sign-on form are at http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/125/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5703
-
Kathryn commented on the article |
No argument from me on your conclusion, Eric.
Mario, I've followed the federal budget process for more years than I care to confess. And it's certainly not my experience that what the chairman of the House Budget Committee says "pretty much goes." Appropriations must originate in the House, but the Senate does not routinely rubber-stamp what the House sends over. Other legislation often begins in the Senate. Indeed, the House sometimes deliberately defers to the Senate.
On this issue, I agree that there will be problems on the Senate side. We're already seeing bipartisan proposals that would, in the long-run, make the "savings" the House Republicans have in mind look like chump change. I've just done a posting on a couple of them at http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/shared-opportunity-economic-security-in-the-bulls-eye-on-capitol-hill/
-
Kathryn commented on the article |
Eric, Congress has not ordered CBO to reduce funding levels to the 2008 level. First, CBO has no authority to do anything about federal funding except provide figures. Second, the 2008 target level is what the House Republican leadership has set. Fortunately, the House can't determine funding levels. Both the House and the Senate must agree.
This isn't to say that the threat to affordable housing programs isn't real. Only to set the record straight on what has and hasn't happened and to suggest that the immediate focus should be on the Senate because the Republicans have enough votes in the House to pass whatever the Appropriations Committee ultimately recommends.
-
Kathryn commented on the article |I too am a stronger supporter of assistance to low-income individuals and families, Elizabeth. That's exactly why I believe that it's critical at this point to advocate for legislation that will increase local revenues.
This is a top priority for the Fair Budget Coalition, which comprises well over 100 local advocacy and service organizations for low-income residents. It's also a top priority for several other overlapping coalitions, including one telling named Save Our Safety Net.
The point here, as always in public policymaking, is that merely saying "no" will merely ensure you're not at the table as decisions are made. The District has no choice but to close a budget hole, which we're hearing may now be revised upward to $600 million. So if we want to preserve benefits for low-income people, we have to show how the budget can be balanced without cutting them. -
Kathryn commented on the article |
You apparently aren't aware that the DC Council ultimately modified the plan to phase out TANF benefits for long-term recipients-at least, for the time being. I've summarized the final TANF provisions in the legislation on my blog at http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/12/26/dc-council-cuts-tanf-benefits-approves-full-cut-offs/
As my posting indicates, I'm as concerned as you are about prospective benefits cuts. However, I don't doubt Gray's claim that the motive is financial. The District is facing a large budget shortfall. Unlike the federal government (though like all states), it can't run a temporary deficit to sustain anti-poverty investments that may pay off later.
Asking the mayor to make no cuts in services is counterproductive. Much better to join the local advocacy organizations in supporting tax changes that would mitigate the need for cuts. -
Kathryn commented on the article |This is a very enlightening posting, Steven. However, I think it misses an important point. No matter how accurate the point-in-time counts, they won't tell us (or policymakers) how many homeless people there are because the definition counters must use excludes some large groups of people who don't have a place of their own to live because they can't afford it.
I wrote about this on the occasion of the 2009 point-in-time counts at http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/who-counts-as-homeless/.Since then, Congress has modestly expanded the definition of "homelessness," but communities don't need to expand their counts to include the newly-recognized homeless people.
-
Kathryn commented on the article |I've received other comments complaining about state cost-of-living estimates. As with so many things, the devil is in the details. We would need to see what items the state is including and what data it's using to estimate their costs.
If, for example, it's averaging housing costs across a state like NH, then the estimate could very well be too low for major urban areas. There's also an important issue about the type of household the state is using-age, composition, etc. Obviously, the living costs of a single parent with a young child are very different from the living costs of two seniors.
We have the same issue at the federal level. For two years now, Social Security retirement benefits haven't been adjusted because the cost-of-living index used indicates no increase. However, some people argue that the index doesn't accurately reflect costs for older people. I looked at this issue on my blog awhile ago at http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/a-second-look-at-flat-lined-social-security-benefits-for-seniors/
Impact
35 Actions
29 Recruits
Top Causes
|
25 Actions
29 Recruits
|
5 Actions
|
|
2 Actions
|
Organizations
-
Drug Policy Alliance1 Action 0 Recruits -
Union of Concerned Scientists1 Action 0 Recruits -
Obama for America1 Action 0 Recruits -
Oxfam America1 Action 0 Recruits -
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee1 Action 0 Recruits
