I am also dismayed to hear that HUD continues to fund public housing at only 70% of its operating expenses. Ive spoken to the leaders of several public housing agencies regarding this matter, and they told me this action will result in layoffs, cuts in services, and delays in the preparation of rental units for re-lease. I commend my colleagues, Mr. Frank and Ms. Waters, for their recent request of Secretary Martinez to honor HUDs commitment to raise the level of Operating Fund assistance for public housing authorities to at least 90%.
Perhaps the most egregious proposal in the HUD budget is the rent increase for our poorest families--public housing and Section 8 recipients. The Administration's proposal requires all public housing and Section 8 recipients to pay rent of at least $50 a month. This means that our most destitute families face rent increases of $600 or more per year. Its unconscionable for the Administration to crack down on the very poorest people in the United States while at the same time proposing huge tax cuts for those who need them the least.
Finally, the proposed HUD rule on faith-based organizations raises many more questions than it answers. The proposal confers special rights on religious organizations; namely, the right to engage in various forms of federally-funded employment discrimination that other HUD grantees cant do. The Administration has acknowledged that some forms of discrimination are allowed and implies that some other kinds would not be. Yet, they have refused to add explicit anti-discrimination clauses to the proposed rule. As a result, many of these issues will have to be litigated. In fact, the Justice Department is already on the case for the Administration, issuing interpretations stating that such discrimination is both permissible and constitutional. Aside from the issue of overt discrimination, the Administration hasnt addressed other key questions arising under the proposal. As we all know, Mr. Bushs budget proposals will stretch an under funded HUD even thinner. So how does the Administration propose to fund this new proposal? How will they monitor compliance? Wont this program take resources away from the administration and oversight of other HUD programs? These are just a few of the issues that have not been addressed. Once again, I extend my thanks to Secretary Martinez for appearing before this Committee. I firmly believe that we can frankly state our differences and still have a constructive dialogue. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration as we continue our efforts to make affordable housing a reality for our families and communities.
There are no evil Democrats. Didn’t you get the memo?
Rahm Emmanuel, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson, and Franklin Raines, all Democrats and all associated with the Clinton administration. But, ooooh noooo...the MSM won’t even mention their names.
And the American people still cannot figure it out.
McCain made a half assed attempt to tie Obama to the Freddie/Fannie shenanigans.
ping a ling
Doesn’t matter.
Ethics are only valid for Republcian Admistrations according to Drive Bys. Backgrounds be dammed for the incoming Democrat admistration.
Didn’t we learn that in the 90’s???
Recycled trash. He’s there to make sure the truth doesn’t get out.
And those who can’t string two sentences together will never figure out the connection between Barack Obama and the collapse of our economy with his buddies.
Emanuels season on the brink
By Jonathan E. Kaplan
Posted: 05/10/07 07:44 PM [ET]
The caricature of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the public face of the Democratic sweep of last years midterm elections, is that he swears, fidgets and throws temper tantrums.
http://thehill.com/bookshelf/emanuels-season-on-the-brink-2007-05-10.html
Looks like the same old establishment. That’s some “change”