Understanding Government

Obama administration lawyers have asked the US Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by eight states including California, New York City and three land trusts six years ago, seeking tougher restrictions on carbon dioxide releases by utilities than those set by the federal government, according to the San Francisco Chronicle‘s Bob Egelko.

Justice Department lawyers argue that federal primacy, in the form of recent EPA regulations, give the federal agency and Congress the sole power to regulate greenhouse gases. (more…)

The nation’s biggest public works project could end up as the biggest boondoggle in history, according to Mike Rosenberg and Gary Richards of the San Jose Mercury News, who scour up a myriad of reasons why linking California’s major cities by high speed rail will be a colossal failure. (more…)

In Los Angeles, where the car has been king at least since the Pacific Electric’s Red Cars were junked, there’s real hope that an innovative federal-state-local funding plan will get trains back on track. As Dan Weikel noted recently in the Los Angeles Times, officials hope their innovative funding plan will entice (more…)

By Marci Greenstein

It’s hard to find any hopeful news about the housing crisis.  There was a sharp decline in home sales in December.  And the federal Home Affordable Modification Program, which was supposed to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, is not working.  But Ruth Simon of the Wall Street Journal highlighted one state’s common sense approach to helping homeowners get through the darkest days, the Pennsylvania Homeowners’ Emergency Mortgage Assistance Program.

“[H]omeowners in financial distress receive either one-time loans that allow them to catch up on missed payments or continuing help with their mortgage payments for up to 36 months. The money is paid directly to mortgage companies and must be repaid when borrowers get back on their feet. Funding for the program comes from state appropriations and repayments of earlier loans.”

“Under the program, borrowers are put on a formal repayment plan once an annual review of their finances shows they have sufficient income. Borrowers have repaid more than $250 million, money that is funneled back into the program.”

Delaware and North Carolina enacted similar programs in their states.  According to Simon, Rep. Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, would like to enact a similar program on the federal level, although some argue that it would be too costly. The Pennsylvania program spends an average of $10,500 per borrower.

The Pennsylvania program is a loan program, not a mortgage modification program, and that is the rub.  Until the government requires more flexibility on the part of banks to modify mortgages, the housing crisis will remain just that.  Still, a loan program like Pennsylvania’s may get many through the bleakest times while the federal government works on long-term fixes in the housing and job markets.

By Marci Greenstein

The Massachusetts program to help low-income smokers kick the habit is an example of government money well spent.  As Abby Goodnough reports in today’s New York Times, the state’s Tobacco Suspension and Prevention Program has resulted in a ten percent (30,000 people) drop in smokers over two years.  The program’s director says that the decrease in the number of smokers in the program is probably the reason for fewer heart attack hospitalizations and asthma related emergency room visits.

The Massachusetts program funds 180 days of anti-smoking drugs and 16 counseling sessions for Medicaid recipients between the ages of 18-64.  The program makes so much sense that U.S. Senators Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sanders (Ind-Vt.) have proposed similar Medicaid coverage for tobacco addiction programs as part of national health care, Goodnough reports.

Contrast this good news with a recent report from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids on how little states are spending on anti-tobacco programs, even though revenues from tobacco sales are up. As Duff Wilson reported in the Times last week, state spending on anti-smoking programs is down 15% in the last year – and represents a mere 2.3% of monies collected from big tobacco since the 1998 multi-state settlement with tobacco companies.   Only one state – North Dakota – is spending an amount in line with U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, according to the report, issued jointly by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Lung Association and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Given the cost of emergency room care and hospital stays, which low-income residents typically rely on, it’s easy to see the enormous cost benefit of a program to treat  tobacco addiction.  The message from Massachusetts is clear – spending money to reduce smoking will reap big health care savings down the road.