In what it calls an attempt to help “very low-income families” live in better neighborhoods, the Obama administration moved forward with a sweeping order that forces the government to increase its funding for their housing – enabling them to move to areas that offer more opportunity and less poverty.

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – which spends tens of billions of dollars on rent for the poor annually – announced its final rule earlier this month in the federal register. The free money – at taxpayers’ expense – lets Americans move up the socioeconomic ladder geographically … without earning it.

“A chunk of the money – an estimated $18 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office – goes to a program called Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), which is funded by HUD and administered by local public housing agencies,” the government watchdog organization Judicial Watch explained. “It allows recipients to choose housing in the private market and pays a set amount based on fair market rent for a metropolitan area. Under the new rule, which goes into effect in January, fair market rents will now be calculated by ZIP code – so Uncle Sam will pay a lot more for people to live in nicer areas.”

Confirmation of the increased rent subsidies was recently announced by HUD Secretary Julian Castro.

“Today, we embark upon a new approach to offer more choice and greater opportunity for families struggling to find a decent place to call home,” Castro informed. “Moving to this approach will offer these voucher-holding families more opportunities to move into higher opportunity neighborhoods with better housing, better schools and higher paying jobs.”

Redistributing wealth

The new regulation states that it is an attempt to even things out – much like a socialist state.

“This final rule establishes a more effective means for HCV tenants to move into areas of higher opportunity and lower poverty by providing the tenants with a subsidy adequate to make such areas accessible and, consequently, help reduce the number of voucher families that reside in areas of high poverty concentration,” the rule reads.

The progressive policy of wealth redistribution is masterminded by scholars coming out of America’s most prestigious universities in the Ivy League.

“The agency decided to spend more money to house the poor after a group of Ivy League social scientists published a study on the effects of moving families away from neighborhoods with deeply concentrated poverty to low-poverty environments,” Judicial Watch pointed out. “They found that children who moved to low-poverty neighborhoods before the age of 13 did better as adults, had significantly higher earnings and a greater likelihood of attending college. To keep with one of the agency’s key missions of ‘fostering opportunities for economic mobility,’ American taxpayers will foot the bill for the higher rent in more upscale neighborhoods.”

The Washington watchdog group contends that the government agency is reverting back to the tactic of using alleged racial discrimination to push its free handout program enabling families with lower incomes to move into homes and neighborhoods that higher income families cannot afford to live in.

“To justify the added expense, HUD is playing the race card, asserting that the current method of doling out vouchers ‘has not proven effective in addressing the problem of concentrated poverty and economic and racial segregation in neighborhoods,’” Judicial Watch maintains. “The agency fully expects that when the new system kicks in, it will be ‘more effective in helping families move to areas of higher opportunity and lower poverty.’”

 Socialist agenda

It is argued that the new rule is just another case of President Barack Obama’s socialist agenda to redistribute income earned by hard-working Americans to those looking to capitalize on free subsidies and move up in life – with little or no effort on their own. The rationale behind the project is said to be flawed … at best.

“To some, this may sound like social engineering, and yet another Obama administration example of spreading the wealth around,” the government accountability organization asserts. “For instance, the ‘better jobs’ argument is a huge red herring – particularly in the area surrounding the capitol, which will be deeply impacted by the new rule. For example, the highest new fair market rent areas in the District of Columbia are in the northwest, while the lowest are in the southeast. Commuting to downtown is actually easier from the southeast because of its proximity, metro rail coverage and bus routes. Also, the highest rent allowances in the area are in places like Fairfax – again, far less accessible to employment centers than anywhere in the District.”

Another case is made against the rationale behind the program – showing that the soon-to-be enforced regulation will have a major impact on the makeup of neighborhoods targeted by HUD.

“In 2016, the fair market rent for the entire D.C. metropolitan area for a two-bedroom apartment was $1,623,” the nonprofit group gave as an example. “Under the new rule, voucher amounts in the D.C. area will range up to $2,420 a month for a two-bedroom apartment in northwest D.C and parts of Fairfax and Arlington counties. Among the areas that will implement the new system are the nation’s largest cities, including Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia and San Antonio. HUD claims that its current system artificially inflates rents in some higher poverty neighborhoods – rather than incentivize voucher holders to move to higher opportunity neighborhoods.”

Legacy of crooks

Besides HUD’s poorly thought-out strategy, Judicial Watch stressed that the government agency has been involved in numerous underhanded dealings – for decades.

“This is an agency that’s been embroiled in a multitude of serious scandals – under both Democrat and Republican administrations – over the years … including the discovery that $200 million had been wasted at local public housing agencies run by people with ‘troubled backgrounds; in high-ranking positions,” the whistle-blowers warned.

It was also brought to attention that HUD has been under unscrupulous and criminal leadership through several administrations … dating back to at least the 1980s.

“George W. Bush’s HUD secretary, Alphonso Jackson, was forced to resign in the midst of a federal investigation involving cronyism,” Judicial Watch emphasized. “Bill Clinton’s HUD secretary, Henry Cisneros, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about payments to a mistress. Ronald Reagan’s HUD secretary, Samuel Pierce, was involved in an influence-peddling scandal that saw 16 people – including some of his top aides at the agency – convicted.”

—-

Copyright OneNewsNow.com. Reprinted with permission.

No votes yet.
Please wait...