WSJ editorials drive me nuts. For so many reasons . . . a friend of mine summed it up really well in an email today that said:
The Wisconsin State Journal’s ed board is getting really boring. They roll out the same damn template for every social and economic justice proposal that we offer. Fill in the blanks: [sick leave/Section 8 equality/IZ/minimum wage] won’t really help the people it’s intended to help. What we really need is [a much more costly solution that would never in a million years be politically feasible and that we, the WSJ, would never actually support and would in fact vehemently opppose] and besides, this program is a mandate and government shouldn’t “force” [landlords/employers/developers/realtors] to do anything.
She’s right . . . that’s annoying, Even more annoying to me, is that they will say anything, regardless of fact and without consequence . . .
Today’s editorial on Section 8 has a few examples:
Dane County should not force landlords to participate in the cumbersome and risky rent-assistance program known as Section 8.
Instead, the federal government should stabilize and streamline the program so its funding is predictable and its red tape reduced.
Ok – “cumbersome” and “risky”. I’d love to hear how they came to that conclusion. They spread these myths about the program without any facts. What “red tape” needs to be reduced? Why isn’t the funding “predictable”? Are they talking about the federal government funding the Housing Authorities? Or are they talking about landlords getting their rent checks? How would that “red tape” be reduced? And why is the Section 8 program “risky”? Are they aware that the Apartment Association and the Housing Authorities have been working together to dispel these myths and get more landlords to participate . . . and they’ve been successful in doing so?
Historically, the main problem with the program in Dane County has not been a lack of acceptance of Section 8 vouchers. Instead, the trouble has been a lack of federal funding to pay for all the tenants who qualify for help but sit on waiting lists.
Really? Perhaps both problems co-exist side by side? Yes, we need more money for the program. But once someone gets a voucher, if they can’t use it, isn’t that a problem? What good is a program that doesn’t work?
A misguided proposal in front of Dane County supervisors fails to address the real problem. Instead, it tars landlords as the bad guys and seeks retribution.
“Tars landlords” and “seeks retribution”? WTF? Retribution? How? Why? How did they come to this conclusion? How is this retribution? Where do they come up with language like this? Is this the “retribution”?
The proposal would prohibit landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants who plan to use Section 8 vouchers. It would add “Section 8 recipient” to a long list of things – race, gender, religion, etc. – that cannot be used to discriminate against tenants.
That’s retribution? That’s what “tars landlords as the bad guys”? Why is this about the landlords and not about the working poor families and disabled and elderly tenants who have vouchers?
But Section 8 is not race, gender or religion. It’s a complicated government assistance program with plenty of paperwork and requirements. To claim a landlord who declines to participate in Section 8 is guilty of discrimination is to distort the meaning of discrimination into nonsense.
Wow. Again, ignoring the facts. The State of Wisconsin has a protection against discrimination based on “source of income”. It’s a State law that prohibits this discrimination, just like race, gender and religion. Section 8 was determined by the courts not to be a “source of income” since the tenant does not receive the check and does not have discretion to spend the money on anything other than rent. The checks go directly to the landlord. This proposal is merely extending the definition of “income” that the State already determined to be discrimination when a landlords refuses to rent to people because their income comes from social security or W-2.
The reason many landlords don’t want to participate is because of the headaches and risks involved.
These kinds of statements are really counterproductive. Again, the Apartment Association and the Housing Authorities have been working for years to dispel these myths and they have been successful. More landlords than ever are willing to participate in the program . . . it’s just that too many of them continue to not be willing to do so.
But like a bad rerun, the proposal is back again for another round of predictable grandstanding and tired drama. The Section 8 show should end the same way it did back in 1999. Supervisors should reject the proposal.
Oh, and the smoking ban repeal and IZ repeal weren’t predictable grandstanding and tired drama?
Yup – screw the working poor families, elderly and disabled; condemn the folks trying to make their lives easier; spread lies and myths regardless of facts; and sit smugly in your comfy WSJ office and ignore the real problems we have in Madison. Oh, and while you’re at it, continue to whine about how we’re giving out enough corporate welfare even though your own 4 part series failed to reveal any facts to support the perception of a problem that you created.
/rant
