Section 8: Bond blasts HUD
Having survived the committee consolidation by migrating to HUD’s new host (Transportation Treasury plus), Senator Kit Bond (R-MO)
“Bond. Kit Bond.”
… wasted little time telling HUD what he thinks of the Administration’s housing budget:
Lawmakers from both parties blasted President Bush’s proposed $ 28.5 billion fiscal 2006 Department of Housing and Urban Development budget plan yesterday [April 20 — Ed.], saying its enactment would hurt housing as well as community and economic development programs.
The overall proposed funding level for HUD in fiscal 2006 is $ 3.7 billion less than the department’s actual $ 32.2 billion budget in the current fiscal year that began Oct. 1.
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said the HUD budget proposal contains “draconian cuts,” and that he believes the president has been getting “some very bad advice about the housing and community development needs of the nation.” Bond is chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the judiciary, HUD, and related agencies.
During the hearing’s question and answer session, HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson …
I’ll bet he wasn’t smiling that day …
… offered a series of very weak salvos to an obviously irate committee (quotes taken from the National Housing Conference’s very helpful
During the hearing, Mr. Jackson was questioned about HUD’s justification for proposed cuts to HUD programs as well as the department’s recent policy initiatives, specifically the State and Local Housing Flexibility Act of 2005 introduced in the Senate on April 13. In response to questions regarding budget funding, Mr. Jackson stated that, “I needed to keep Section 8 a top priority so as not to put people out on the streets.”
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) pointed out that the Administration could have rather raised the entire HUD budget so that people can remain in their housing and their children remain healthy within the housing.
Score: Senate 1, Jackson 0.
A bit later, Mr. Jackson offered what appears to be a contradictory rationale:
During the discussion on the bill (S.771), Mr. Jackson defended the legislation by stating that the purpose of the bill is to serve more people with less money by allowing housing authorities to serve higher income people who can pay more towards their rent.
Score: Senate 2, Jackson 0.
Serve more people? Really?
Now, it’s beyond self-evident that the people whose incomes are lowest have the fewest housing choices; they are the ones for whom the alternative to assisted housing is a severe housing burden or downright homelessness. Mr. Jackson’s stated goal of “serving more with less” is economically incompatible with protecting the extremely low income (ELI) population for whom Section 8 is an essential income support.
As to whether a shift to ’serve more with less money’ is a wise idea:
Ranking Member of the Banking Committee, Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) read from a letter he received on April 29 signed by 39 national organizations in opposition to the bill. Quoting from the letter, Sarbanes stated the bill “represents a seismic shift in national housing policy” and that the “program changes proposed by the bill would be devastating to those currently participating in HUD affordable housing programs as well as to the millions in need of assistance.”
Or is the goal just to cut the money?
Bond said in reality the proposed funding figure is lower than $ 28.5 billion because “the overall budget numbers are distorted through a budget rescission request of $ 2.5 billion as well as by how [Federal Housing Administration] receipts are treated for purposes of the fiscal 2006 budget.”
The senator said he was troubled by the proposed taking-back of the $ 2.5 billion in already appropriated but unspent funds because “neither HUD nor the Office of Management and Budget has been able or willing to identify the source of funding.”
HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, who testified at yesterday’s hearing, said he was unable to say which HUD account the rescinded funds would come out of, but added that he was trying to find out.
Bond angrily shot back, scolding
Senate 3, Jackson 0.
Appropriators need to know right now what they are dealing with so they can make responsible decisions, he said, noting that the House will begin considering appropriations bills in June, and the Senate will begin doing the same in July. Bond said he wanted
I’ll take the unders.
