The Degradation of the Public Realm

(c) by Mark Dempsey

The following is a response to a Linkedin poster wanting to know what resources are in play to address COVID-19, homelessness and poverty:

Jesus Hernandez, a sociologist at UC Davis has an interesting presentation about the difference between public improvements in the rich vs. poor areas of the Sacramento region. Surprise! Poor people also don't get an enriched public realm (e.g. better schools, nicer parks, innovative transit-on-demand, etc.). Those things go to the rich neighborhoods.

Given the concerted attack on the public realm that has afflicted the U.S. for literally generations now, this is not a big surprise, but it certainly influences the level of services the poor, homeless, COVID-19 sufferers, etc. can expect.

Housing the homeless right now is certainly possible. In fact, I've read that San Francisco has five times the needed capacity for its entire homeless population in homes that are currently unoccupied. Vancouver taxes such vacant homes to discourage parking hot money in home purchases, but in California Prop 13 is sacrosanct don'tcha know. Anyway, it's not for lack of resources in our economy that people sleep under bridges.

It's widely acknowledged that, compared to the cost in police time and emergency room visits, addressing homelessness by giving the homeless a place to stay ("housing first") is actually cheaper. Finland provides its homeless population with guaranteed housing now, proving again that it can be done.

The problem is that the libertarian political right has promoted its anti-collectivist propaganda with just about unlimited funds, upset that some poor homeless person might get something s/he doesn't deserve, and/or that a powerful government might impair the plutocrats' social position, property or wealth.

This makes compassionate policy a hard sell to the American electorate. In fact, it's downright unpopular to provide the kind of robust public realm that could actually help those down on their luck.

One of the most frequently used excuses is austerity. "We'd love to do that, but we just don't have the money." Right. We have the money to bail out the banks ($16 - $29 trillion in 2007-8, says the Federal Reserve's own audit), or prosecute illegal Middle Eastern wars ($3 - $7 trillion for Afghanistan and Iraq, says Nobel Laureate economist Joe Stiglitz)...but when it comes to the poor, or grandma's retirement and healthcare... Nope! We're definitely out of money! (Please ignore that we "print" it without limit for the important people)

On the other hand, austerity has the support of the corporate wings of both the American political parties, and just happens to enforce what economist Michal Kalecki termed "labor discipline." The message is simple: "Take whatever crappy job is on offer, or suffer the indignities of poverty, even homelessness, ill health and starvation." In other words, austerity is the whip in the hands of the plutocrats.

How much has the political right spent to make these policies respectable? For one example, the Kochs (who oppose "collectivism"--their word) spent $889 million to influence the 2016 elections. Says the Washington Post: "Clinton's unsuccessful campaign ($768 million in spending) outspent Trump's successful one ($398 million) by nearly 2 to 1."... but of course they omit mentioning the Kochs' Political Action Committees' independent spending that outpaces both parties.

I've heard conservatives justify the Kochs' spending because they are supposedly just providing some balance to George Soros' spending. Never mind that Soros is a capitalist's capitalist (a currency speculator), hardly a lefty, or a friend of labor, his political spending in 2016 was $27 million (that's about 3% of Koch's spending, if your calculator's not handy).

But that's the range of the debate

This kind of money commands so much respect, that it means Margaret Thatcher can say "There is no such thing as society, only individuals and families"...a statement roughly equivalent to saying "You have no body, only cells and organs"... and it's treated as a respected bit of wisdom that justifies dismantling and sabotaging government and the public assets it manages.

The public realm is what's accessible to everyone, even the poor. And Thatcher's formula does work, in a way. Child poverty tripled after Thatcher got through with the Brits.

Across the pond, as Reagan was halving the income tax for wealthy, he cut HUD's affordable housing budget 75%. This followed Richard Nixon enforcing a moratorium on Federally-funded affordable housing. Gosh, I wonder why affordable housing is so scarce now?

Incidentally, between Reagan and Bush 41, payroll taxes increased eightfold. So...Reagan cut taxes on the rich in half, while he and Bush 41 ensured taxes on working America increased 800%. Gosh! I wonder why the U.S. has the wealth distribution of a banana republic, and 40% of its population can't handle a $400 emergency without selling something or borrowing.

So no, Reagan who didn't just reduce taxes, produced a budget deficit that exceeded the sum of all previous administrations' deficits. Dick Cheney said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." This spending binge did produce that "Morning in America" economic "miracle" of the Reagan recovery that occurred during his administration, but Reagan also kicked off the massive wealth inequality that persists today. And it turns out "Morning in America" was an average business cycle recovery.

Reagan's "Morning in America" appears just to the right of the 1980 recession (the gray bar). Notice that far larger GDP growth appears during the New Deal, and during that big public works project we call "World War II"--all implemented when austerity wasn't in fashion.

In any case, the very idea that there's something that transcends individual capabilities--like a systemic problem--is something increasingly ignored in the current public policy debate.

Here's a systemic problem for you: You throw nine bones out your back door and send ten dogs to retrieve a bone. No matter how well-trained, responsible, law-abiding, etc. are the dogs, one will come up short. Sure, you can scold the dog for being lazy and shiftless, but you're wasting your time unless the system changes.

So an end to austerity, and systemic change is what's needed now, for homelessness, COVID-19, healthcare, immigration and a host of other problems. Which reminds me of what another Brit (Winston Churchill) said: "I can always count on my American friends to do the right thing. Unfortunately, it's often after they've tried everything else."

Update: The notion that police force can remedy generations of austerity is at least questionable. It used to be a common understanding that social safety net programs were a cheap way to purchase social peace. Not any more... In any case, expecting the police to perform "emergency surgery" on society after a lifetime, and more, of neglect, is a losing bet.