Inequality and Legal Representation

Along with the growing affordability crisis there has been a chronic shortage of public defenders. With tightened finances this means more people can't afford attorneys. The public defender system seems broken.

Non-federal public defense systems vary. The most common type is where there's a staffed public defender's office (a few offices are nonprofit). Sometimes private attorneys are used to supplement these. Some places have contracts with private attorneys. 

When someone is charged with a serious crime, the case may be dismissed because of the defense shortage, and someone that is a threat to society is released. There may not be a defender available, and the accused sits in there for a prolonged period of time, thereby causing unnecessary personal and financial problems, maybe adding to recidivism rates. People may be pushed into plea deals even if they're innocent.

Even when people have a public defender, they're not getting equal representation. Case loads for defenders range from excessive to extremely excessive, contributing to burnout and turnover. More competitive attorneys are dissuaded by this and relatively low pay. 

These issues may cause legal dynamics to work against the accused. Poor defendants don't have access to independent forensic experts and investigators. Witness testimonies can be inaccurate or fabricated. Weak forensic evidence may go unchallenged, and may be weaker if the investigators know case details. Prosecutors may see the lack of adequate representation as a weakness. 

The whole public defender model should be restructured. Pre-law majors could be required take a couple of undergrad courses on criminal law, and these could be a prerequisite to Law School. Law schools could require all students to take a common core (12-15 credits) in criminal law. 

Courts could randomly appoint private attorneys to cover cases where financing is clearly an issue. This should be a condition of practicing law. They could be paid what public defenders would get, which is already an underfunding issue. So, for maybe every 7 cases, for instance, that a family attorney handles for an implicitly inflated rate, they would be required to cover one of these. 

Attorneys would be motivated to give defendants fair representation in order to uphold their and/or their firms' reputations. For more serious cases, a random criminal law attorney could be appointed. This would be a more fair and efficient way, as well as function as a contributor to upward mobility.

Social Media, Podcasts and Astroturfing

 

Here's a few good reasons for getting money out of politics. The FTC needs more resources. Especially, they need more authority and additional resources in order to deal with regulations over political spending on social media and podcasts.

A prime example of how astroturfing works is the Tea Party movement. Much of the personal and organizational political content on social media and in podcasts is astroturfing, and much of that is sponsored in one way or another.

There is practically no oversight when it comes to this. Oversight, when it comes to paid advertising for products and services on digital media, is addressed to a certain extent. The FEC regulates political spending on explicit ads which appear on websites, but it isn't clear how regulations apply to spending on influencer speech in social media and podcasts. When it comes to political spending on influencer speech or visuals conveyed over digital media, which isn't explicit advertising, FEC regulations are incomplete and difficult to enforce. Oversight issues come down to freedom of speech vs. political spending on shady campaign promotions.

The FTC should have responsibility for this because the FEC isn't poised to deal with it, and they have been struggling to effectively regulate online political ads. When someone or something is selling politics, it's the same as selling anything else. These influencers often take a branded approach. Political spending, when it comes to this, is enough to sway the entire political spectrum.

Additional resources for the FTC should include provisions in order to deal with dark money in this type of political sponsorship.

Affordable Housing for Seniors

Seniors have been a growing part of the homeless population, and this will continue. A major reason is Social Security increases aren't keeping up with healthcare and housing costs. COLA increases are based on a measure of inflation, which doesn't always take into account rising healthcare and housing costs (especially housing costs in expensive coastal urban areas). Modern, alternative housing options are needed to deal with this.

The most common solution to date for affordable housing is development using LIHTCs. This system probably isn't the most efficient because it involves several players and is kind of complicated. These projects aren't the most effective for the growing number of needy seniors. Sometimes, they're kind of trophy projects, in that they have features which aren't necessary when it boils down to cost and survival. They may have excessive design (appearance) features, and features which are nice to have, but ultimately aren't necessary, such as washers and dryers, storage and community areas.

 

Affordable housing developments in Missoula 

What would be really helpful here, is if someone started a nonprofit that went around building minimalistic micro-apartments in certain areas. There are smaller towns (population 5,000-15,000) in states such as Alabama, Mississippi and Oklahoma where lots in the 1/4 to 1/3 acre size are cheap, from 5,000 to 10,000. Many of these towns have declining or stagnant populations. These states have mild climates, and are affordable. 

The nonprofit could have land use attorneys that push the plans and permits through, and work on zoning exceptions and variances, if that's an issue. Places like these usually aren't hard to build in. They have minimal bureaucracy, and would probably welcome the economic gains (including property taxes) and demographic.

These developments could be about 30-40 units (able to fit on a good sized residential lot), and two to three story so they can be wood framed. 200-250 square feet units would be ideal, with minimal features: a micro fridge, maybe just a microwave for cooking, no washing machines in the facility, basic everything. New construction is always a plus, and they can look nice without becoming cost prohibitive. 

Even a lot of the newer micro-apartments in cities have things that aren't necessities, such as laundry facilities, gyms and common areas. Also, they're for certain people, so there's location and transportation considerations. Here, cost would be the priority. The same designs could be used across multiple developments to save on costs.

These places could be built for people 55+ that receive SSI, SSDI or Social Security (not seriously handicapped), and have that as a requirement to stay. The types of towns mentioned above have basic necessities, and job opportunities wouldn't be an issue. Just someplace where someone can live, rather than be on the street, in a shelter or in a car. 

Loans for the projects could come from or through HUD. Rent could probably run 500-550 per unit. The places would pay for themselves. The nonprofit could make a cost estimate on a project, get the loan, buy the land, then build and rent. They would require only about one parking space for every 2 units, because most of them wouldn't have cars (or, some wouldn't be allowed to park on the property as a condition). It's easy to get around smaller towns.

The key would be having just one nonprofit handling numerous developments across multiple states, so economies of scale can apply. 

Lobbying and Revolving Door Politics

 

In 2021, Biden signed Executive Order 13989, which had several protections against harmful lobbying and revolving door practices. This was rescinded under the current administration. The order was a major step toward getting money out of politics.

Industries where a lack of regulation in this area can be detrimental include pharmaceuticals, defense, finance, healthcare, and real estate. People shouldn't want personal and financial ties interfering with economic efficiencies in these areas.

One example where excessive lobbying can be problematic is how the NAR is lobbying to increase exclusions on capital gains taxes on residential real estate. This results in more inflated home prices. Also, the more the price of housing is inflated, the more realtors make on sales commissions (given equal turnover).

The ways revolving door politics work are a member of congress (or staffer) or government employee may leave that position and end up with a lucrative corporate (including boards), consultant, think tank, media, or lobbying position, and vice versa. This is widely considered to be a conflict of interest.

Spending on lobbying by organizations should be limited to 1,000,000. This would eliminate much of the unethical behavior and open up congress to receiving feedback and suggestions from smaller entities. With politics there's the votes, campaign spending and lobbying. Getting things away from spending on campaigns and lobbying, and toward individual votes would work better.