jonetta rose barras: The opening of DC’s political season
There are unquestionable and discernible signs, in my view, that DC’s political season has already begun — although the next election isn’t until 2022. Consider, as evidence, the fact that many politicians and wannabes have been engaged in either unabashed genuflecting before special-interest groups, dizzying levels of political posturing, or nauseating amounts of pontificating around racial, economic and social justice equity.
A few examples of recent policy proposals caught my attention: One DC Council member has proposed guaranteed income for poor residents. Another legislator has suggested increasing per pupil spending for the city’s public schools, again. Still another is pushing a tax rate increase for households with an income of $250,000 or more.
Those suggestions have come in recent weeks as Mayor Muriel Bowser prepares to file her proposed fiscal year 2022 budget and financial plan with the legislature. Initially, the document was to be submitted this month; however, she requested and received an extension until April 22 from the DC Council.
Bowser wanted to wait until after Congress approved President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which includes $350 billion for state and local government. The District is expected to receive more than $2.2 billion; that is about 15.9% of the city’s budget of $13.8 billion.
The mayor may have thought the delay might shorten the list of wild, lavish and fanciful spending proposals from legislators and advocates. The pending COVID-19 rescue money appears to have had the opposite effect.
It’s election season.
Not only is Bowser potentially hoping to hold onto her seat, but DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson is also running for reelection. Attorney General Karl Racine had announced he intended to run for reelection; he may be having second thoughts based on comments at a recent forum sponsored by the University of the District of Columbia, as first reported by Tom Sherwood of WAMU and Washington City Paper. Six legislators — Ward 1’s Brianne Nadeau, Ward 3’s Mary Cheh, Ward 5’s Kenyan McDuffie, Ward 6’s Charles Allen, and at-large members Anita Bond and Elissa Silverman — are expected to defend their council seats. They may not have officially announced, but they certainly appear to be telegraphing their intentions as they look to gain the attention of voters, financial supporters and advocates who serve as pools of unpaid campaign workers.
The focus by most elected officials has been on money: To hear them talk, there is never enough being spent, and some segment of the community isn’t receiving its fair share. That false narrative — alternative facts, if you will — has left me feeling as if Trump has taken control of the John A. Wilson Building.
With a $13.8 billion budget for slightly more than 700,000 people, DC’s major challenge isn’t necessarily money. The city’s overarching afflictions are arcane and outdated public policies; compounding their age and innovation deficit are poor design and implementation. Oversight has been scarce and unfocused, permitting initial flaws to perpetuate or expand. All of this ultimately ensures the government fails the people who are supposed to be helped.
Consider the city’s affordable housing strategy, which relies heavily on the Housing Production Trust Fund. I and others have wondered why the city hasn’t more aggressively used the muscle of its District Opportunity to Purchase Act (DOPA), which allows the government to buy private property that’s on the market. The current law applies to rental housing accommodations with five or more units.
What would happen if the legislation were expanded, allowing the city to use DOPA to purchase from landlords homes in wards 7 and 8 currently being rented by low-income families? Those families could then purchase the homes from the city under a free-down-payment system; mortgages would remain within the range of the rent previously paid. If necessary, the city could include a resale covenant.
Such a move could stabilize those families and their communities. Further, it could reduce the adverse consequences of gentrification while potentially helping communities to present a stronger profile for private investments like retail outlets or grocery stores.
As shown in the halting half-measures to implement DOPA, the government often takes minimal action to resolve critical and seemingly intransigent problems — all too often keeping poor and low-income residents locked in place. Still, elected officials, advocates and others slap their PPS (poor people’s saviors) labels on their chests and boast during political campaigns of their service to the most vulnerable.
In a Feb. 26 letter to the mayor, McDuffie, the council’s chair pro tempore, presented a laundry list of spending requests — placating his Ward 5 constituents (as well as potential supporters citywide) just by proposing them. More broadly, he also has requested a $100 million investment to “study, develop and pilot a guaranteed income program for District households whose incomes fall below 100% of the federal poverty line.”
How would that affect existing programs like Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers? Would that guaranteed income program be another initiative devoted to fish-giving rather than fish-teaching? Is it a path to the middle class or an equity program to nowhere?
Ward 1 Council member Brianne Nadeau, in her own letter to Bowser, requested, among other things, a 4% increase in per pupil public school spending. That would be on top of the nearly 3% increase that was given this 2021 fiscal year.
Already the city spends nearly $2 billion for public education. A recent scathing report from DC Auditor Kathy Patterson has made clear that despite that huge figure, the District cannot demonstrate definitively that its children — particularly at-risk children — are succeeding in school. Annual spending increases aren’t the answer.
Meanwhile, Ward 6 Council member Charles Allen has been trying to rally members around a proposal to increase the income tax on high earners. That seems an ongoing campaign by the far left, without regard for its adverse impact on the middle class, which has been bruised over the years by elimination of programs that once helped families move into that income bracket.
Consider, as an example of encroachment on middle-class benefits, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute (DCFPI), a nonprofit budget research and advocacy group, proposed in a blog post that the city “repeal a college savings deduction that primarily serves the richest residents.” It’s hard to square that assertion of extreme wealth, however, with its own reports that indicate among other things, “More than 90 percent of the benefits flow to families making over $100,000.”
In the District, that income level hardly amounts to being rich, especially when considering the cost of college.
Patterson said she is “appalled” that anyone would advocate repealing the college savings deduction. She and former Council members Kevin Chavous and Jack Evans were responsible for its passage by the legislature in 2002. Then, as now, most states have college savings programs that provide tax credits.
DC provides up to $8,000 in tax deductions for a married couple participating in the program, and $4,000 for individuals, according to David Umansky, a spokesperson for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. At the end of 2020, there were “31,445 accounts with an average balance of $25,896.”
Maybe I am just blind. I can’t see the harm in the program, especially since everyone benefits from a well-educated population.
Some council members and advocates seem to suffer a form of nihilism that prevents them from taking the long view of public policy development and financial planning for the city. Each year, the process and conversation mostly replicates the previous one. For example, they lay in the cut to assault the middle class with a potentially counterproductive tax that could ultimately strip the city of critical investment resources that such families actually bring, either directly through taxes they pay (including income and property) or through philanthropic giving.
I concede that the city’s economy has taken a hard hit during the pandemic. The chief financial officer has suggested that DC may have at least one more year of belt-tightening. However, some of that may be mitigated by the federal stimulus money the city is expected to receive. So why are politicians in a snatch-and-grab mode?
“I think progressives are determined to raise taxes for the sake of raising taxes,” said Council Chairman Mendelson, who isn’t sure whether he would have the votes to stop Allen’s proposal.
Lending credibility to his assertion, Jews United for Justice Campaign Fund recently released its biannual council scorecard for 2020. Unsurprisingly, legislators considered members of the progressive wing received top scores; their actions around raising taxes and budget allocations that were consistent with JUFJ’s positions won the highest praise.
“We need to be looking at value for [each] dollar spent,” said Patterson. She admitted that has been her mantra for the past three years — “like a broken record.”
While she works for the council, legislators don’t appear to be heeding the findings and recommendations of her reports — let alone her calls for more rigorous assessment of the effectiveness of various programs and for prudent fiscal policies and proposals.
That’s not surprising. Like the mayor, they are caught up in the moment. And the moment is all about getting reelected or jostling for what they see as the next rung on the political ladder.
This post has been updated to correct the figures for DC’s budget.
jonetta rose barras is an author and freelance journalist, covering national and local issues including politics, childhood trauma, public education, economic development and urban public policies. She can be reached at thebarrasreport@gmail.com.
Comments are closed.