Chuck Schumer has been a terrible leader; Ignoring the elephant in the room on housing

Democrats held a vote in the Senate yesterday on abortion rights that failed 49-51 with Joe Manchin joining all 50 Republicans in voting against it. Contrary to what some seem to believe, it did not codify Roe v Wade. It went much further, effectively banning all limits on abortion during the entire pregnancy while eliminating the Hyde Amendment. There is another bill, supported by Joe Manchin, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski that would codify Roe v Wade, but that is not what was voted on. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

None of the bills are going to pass because they will not get 60 votes and the filibuster is not going to be eliminated. They are all purely messaging bills. Therein lies one of many problems with Chuck Schumer’s leadership. When a party is pushing messaging bills, the idea is not that they pass, but that they unite their caucus while dividing the other side so they can have a favorable talking point. That is smart practices 101. Chuck Schumer has decided to be different. He would rather divide his caucus and unite the other side.

This episode is just the latest in what has been piss poor leadership since he became majority leader last year. It is very stunning how bad he has been. During the Trump years, he was very good. When Trump was pushing to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Schumer kept all 48 Democrats together and helped convince John McCain, who he had a great relationship with, to vote against it. He has long had very good personal relationships with most everyone. I counted myself as a big fan of his and looked forward to what he would accomplish as majority leader.

To say I have been disappointed would be an understatement. I am very angry and dismayed. He has prioritized being liked by activists over getting things done. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell, Schumer is unwilling to take any heat from his own side. His has been unwilling to tell activists that they are not going to get what they want. He would rather nothing pass and not have to endure their ire than to get things done and have mean things said about him. He cares more about pleasing Twitter and MSNBC than he cares about governing.

That is a complete dereliction of his duty. Anyone in a leadership position is going to have to deal with all kinds of crap. That goes with the territory. Prior to April, when the filing deadline in New York passed, Schumer seemed genuinely terrified of getting a primary challenge from the left. The idea that it would have successfully happened is beyond laughable. That he and the people he surrounds himself with were afraid of that is a massive indictment of them and shows how disconnected from reality they are. Just look at who the mayor of New York City and the governor of New York are and tell me that Schumer would have been beaten in a primary by AOC! It takes the lowest level of political intelligence to think that was even remotely possible.

Few people take more heat publicly from their own side than McConnell. Hating on him is a favorite past time of the MAGA and anti-establishment crowd. Trump loves to trash him. While it is not nearly as vitriolic, Pelosi gets plenty of hate from the far left and routinely faces far-left primary challengers. Neither of them care about any of it. They do their jobs, raise tons of money and keep their eye on the ball. It was Pelosi who was able to get the infrastructure bill through the House last year, despite opposition from the squad. It was her leadership more than anything else that forced the left-wing of the Democratic Party to vote for the bill even though they did not want to. Harry Reid endured plenty of ire from the left when the effort to pass the ACA was on going. He did not care. The left got almost nothing they wanted while the centrists got almost everything they wanted. As frustrating as it was for many on the left, the bill passed. That is leadership, not just passing things, but being willing to take heat for doing it.

What else has Schumer done to appease activists to the detriment of governing? Last July, he had a meeting with Joe Manchin where he laid out what he would support in Build Back Better. Schumer did not tell anyone about that meeting until two months later. That is two months that were completely wasted when he knew exactly what could have been passed. On top of that, Schumer played a major role in pushing for voting rights legislation earlier this year that had no chance of passing. It was, at best, performative theater and a complete waste of time. All that to appease activists and donors who represent no actual voting constituency.

I am a broken record when it comes to talking about the problem of Democrats listening to activists and ignoring their own voters. I will continue to be a broken record on it for as long as that problem persists. Any leader who kowtows to that crowd has no business being in charge. I do not know who the next Democratic leader in the Senate should be, but it has to be someone willing to take heat from activists on the left and to not care about it. That really should not be hard to do. Senators, like everyone else, want to be liked and they spend plenty of time around activists and donors so it might hurt their egos a bit to get badmouthed, but they need to get past that. The job of the Senate majority leader is to govern and to try to pass things that can pass. It is not to be liked by a tiny swath of people who are completely unrepresentative of the general public. Nobody in a position of power should care in the slightest what someone on Twitter or cable news has to say.

Schumer himself will be perfectly fine. He is not facing any primary challengers and will coast to re-election in November. He has that seat as long as he wants it. He personally will be doing great. The same cannot be said of all the issues he claims to care about. As of now, it looks like nothing from Build Back Better will pass. That means no action on climate change, healthcare, taxes or anything else. He is not the only one responsible for that, but he has played a bigger role than most anyone else. And he did all that to appease a bunch of paper tigers and to avoid a non-existent primary challenge. He has successfully avoided being yelled at by activists who will instead hate on Joe Manchin. The price for that may well be that nothing from Build Back Better gets passed. Call me out of touch, but that sounds like a very raw deal.

There is always a delicate balancing act between getting elected/re-elected and pushing to get things enacted. In the case of Schumer, he had nothing to worry about in terms of getting re-elected. His concerns about re-election are supposed to be about his more vulnerable colleagues. While it will not likely make any real difference in November, it would be nice for them to have something to run on. Beyond that, and much more importantly, it would be nice to accomplish something of substance that will improve people’s lives. Schumer prioritized his own personal well-being above that of his colleagues and the country. He has failed in his duty as majority leader and should be removed from being the Democrats’ leader after November, regardless of any electoral outcomes.

What are we doing?

Zoning is one of my favorite topics to write about, as regular readers of this blog probably figured out a long time ago. One of the reasons I like writing about it is that it exposes the fraudulence of so many people on the left who claim to care about things like reducing inequality and promoting affordable housing. It also exposes as frauds many on the right who claim to want to get government out of the way, but are eerily silent, if not supportive, of regulations blocking housing from being built. Although those on the right are guilty of supporting bad zoning laws, it is in places run by Democrats where they are the worst, which is why my criticism is heavily focused on liberals.

California is not the only place where laws preventing housing from being built are a problem, but it is most certainly the worst offender. The length that people there will go to do everything except cutting back on zoning laws is a sight to behold. Currently, there is an effort underway to deal with the housing affordability crisis by establishing a $10 billion fund to help people buy houses. Like so many other ideas for housing, i.e., housing tax credits, this does nothing to address the elephant in the room.

Not only would this proposal not reduce house prices, it would make them worse. It does nothing to expand the supply of housing. All it does is subsidize existing homes. What happens when demand gets boosted while supply stays the same? Prices go up.

I am not per se against things like housing credits or vouchers. The problem is that they have very finite limits on what they can do. Let’s say there are 100 people who want to buy houses, but the law says only 50 can be built. Giving credits and subsidies to the 100 people will not make the number of houses go up. It may help some of them get a house, but will make the sticker prices much higher. As long as the law says only 50 houses can be built, there will be a huge affordability problem. Credits and subsidies may be alright, but they do not increase the supply of housing. If the housing supply is increased and some still cannot afford houses, then assistance can be good. But giving assistance and not increasing the housing supply is a guaranteed way to make prices higher and sharply limit who will be helped. Zoning laws have to be cut down first and then credits or subsidies can be looked at if needed.

I really wonder what is going on with people in power in places like California. Throwing money at a problem while not addressing its root cause is a great way to worsen it. Do they not know that? Do they not have any idea about basic economics? More cynically, do they know all that and just not care? Do they just want to put on a show of looking like they are doing something? Or is it that most homeowners like things the way they are and do not care that everyone else has been priced out and lawmakers are just reflecting that?

I could go on forever asking those questions, but the point should be clear. The refusal to cut back on zoning laws to let more housing get built is what makes housing unaffordable in California. It is why people are leaving. The same is true in places like New York City, DC and Boston. Millions of people want to live in those places, but it is illegal to build the necessary housing. Until that changes, housing affordability will be a major problem.

I see very few Democrats arguing those points on the state or local level. On the federal level, I see next to nothing. The fact is blue states have failed miserably when it comes to affordable housing. The most expensive places are almost always the most liberal. Even those who are very liberal and preach about the need to reduce inequality wind up becoming NIMBYs the second new housing is proposed in their area. “Inequality is so important, but I don’t want to give up my scenic views and I don’t want other people around where I live!”

This is a problem that can be solved. There is no need for a commission to study it. The solution is screaming at us in the face.

With the pandemic having shifted where some people want to live, there will be opportunities to help with that or to make it worse. For example, many people want to live in Manhattan, but not as many want to work there as they did before the pandemic. Commercial buildings could potentially be converted to residential buildings to allow those people to move there. The problem is the zoning code does not allow it. That will have to change and no other fix will substitute for it.

A theme I have been writing on lately is the need for abundance, which requires dynamism and flexibility. Laws that were passed 50 years ago are having a huge, negative effect on our ability to deal with the problems we are facing today. That includes everything from housing to healthcare to climate change. Cutting back on zoning laws is going to be an integral part of dealing with the problems of today. We need to build and that requires cutting back on red tape at the local, state and federal level. If local governments will not cut back on zoning laws, then states should force them to. If states are going to be NIMBYs, then the federal government should intervene.