Posted on 06/13/2026 4:48:09 AM PDT by MtnClimber
In a post back in January, commenting on the November 2025 off-year elections, I remarked that the buzz-word of the moment for the Democrats appeared to be “affordability.” Many credited that theme as being the winning issue that took the Virginia and New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial candidates (Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill) over the top.
And yet the policies that Spanberger and Sherrill had advocated as the centerpieces of their “affordability” agendas were taken from the playbooks of California and New York, otherwise known as the leading states for intentionally driving up costs for their residents. Anybody could see that California and New York were among the most expensive states for the biggest items on the “affordability” list, particularly energy and housing. And yet Spanberger and Sherrill had succeeded by endless repetition of the bare word “affordability,” without any coherent explanation of how following California’s policies would somehow lead to a different result than what had befallen California.
So now we are in the long run-up to the 2026 midterms. From what I can observe in races near me, it looks like the “affordability” mantra is the central plank of all the candidates of the Democratic Party.
Whether or not there is any substance to the claim, repetition of the word “affordability” must poll well. Writing at Real Clear Politics on Tuesday (June 9), Batya Ungar-Sargon calls “affordability” the “issue that should terrify Republicans.” Ms. Ungar-Sargon points out that the congressional Democrats are cooking up some kind of razzle-dazzle “affordability” bill to be the centerpiece of their 2026 midterm campaign:
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters on Monday that the first bill of a House Democratic majority will concentrate on lowering costs. Jeffries send a letter to all House Democrats announcing five working groups focused on developing affordability legislation targeting housing, gas and utilities, groceries, caregiving, and health care.
But what exactly is Jeffries or any other Democrat proposing to do that would somehow drive prices down and improve affordability for average Americans? They say that they will have “working groups” to study the issues. But what bright and original ideas might the working groups come up with? As I noted in my January post, there are really only two policy alternatives for trying to achieve this holy grail of “affordability”: (1) the classic Democratic approach, which is a combination of government edicts (e.g., ordering prices to be lower) and subsidies, or (2) the classic free market approach, which is that the government minimizes taxes and regulations but otherwise relies on the forces of competition drive prices as low as possible. Approach (1) inevitably drives costs and thus prices higher. Approach (2) is imperfect, but it’s the best we can do. The fundamental reason that the United States delivers to its citizens the highest ratio in the world of per capita income to price of goods (that is, “affordability”) is that, more than anywhere else, we follow approach (2).
But consider the race now under way in my district for the New York State Assembly. Our incumbent member of the State Assembly, a Democrat, has held the seat for some 35 years; but she has announced her retirement. That leaves an open seat, which has attracted a large number of candidates. The seat is a super-safe one for the Democrats, and indeed the incumbent has had no Republican opposition in many elections over these last several decades. Thus all the action is in the primary, which will be held on June 23, with ten days of early voting starting on June 13.
Six candidates are vying for the Democratic nomination. Every one of them claims to be the candidate of “affordability.” Every one of them claims to be the candidate of affordability in housing, and to have some solutions to the issue that are unique and different. In case you don’t know, our district is one of the most expensive for housing, not only in New York City and New York State, but also in the entire country. It has come to that position after nearly a century of New York City housing policies that have controlled rents, punished landlords, and made building difficult. So what do these people propose? Double down! I’ll give you some excerpts from some of the websites:
- From Jeannine Kiely: “I will fight for both affordability and availability by tackling our housing supply crisis head-on. I will support new housing, prioritize 100% affordable housing on government-owned land and focus on building coalitions statewide.” It’s the usual magical thinking. “100% affordable housing on government-owned land” means that the small amount of government-owned land in our district get subsidized apartments built on it. The land here is worth at least $1 million per apartment that can be built, which means that the lucky lottery winners who get the apartments get a $1 million subsidy each. In what sense is this “affordable”? They simply ignore the enormous costs to the taxpayers who don’t get to live in these subsidized places.
- From Ben Yee: “State Land for Affordable Housing. Any state land, or land in which the State has an interest through an Authority, should be required to be a minimum of 50% affordable. Affordable Housing Fund. A new, dedicated lockbox for funding high-density, affordable housing in New York State in areas within commuter distance of economic hubs funded by vacancy and pied-a-terre taxes.” Again, it’s the giveaway of state land without recognizing the huge cost to the taxpayers who don’t get in on the giveaway, combined with new taxes and subsidies.
- From Ryder Kessler: “We need to lower the price of housing, energy, childcare, and healthcare so New Yorkers are free to live and age where we want—without being rent-burdened, displaced, or pushed out of the city altogether, and without being forced into impossible choices about care for our families.” No specifics on how he would accomplish this, but his entire playbook consists of more regulations, taxes, and subsidies.
For the foreseeable future, it looks like we will get a continuation of counter-productive housing policies that will only drive the cost of housing here higher. I don’t think that a Republican will win here any time soon, but at least Republicans elsewhere can point to this incompetence and its results as a lesson to be learned.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Manhattan Contrarian ping
Personally, I would like to see wages rise to more appropriate levels. Once upon a time, just about anyone with a full-time job could manage to pay for a basic middle class lifestyle. That stopped being true a long time ago.
Lowering prices is not easy.
Raising wages is not easy.
No easy solutions.
the jobs numbers have been coming in very strong this year.
Am I the only one who has noticed that, the more we offshore, the less affordable everything has become?
I’ve always been a pro-marketplace capitalist. Wealth creation benefits society. Socialism steals wealth and redistributes it, which harms society.
That being said, I think that since about 1970, American corporations have focused totally on their shareholders and on giving quarterly bonuses to their executives. Screw the workers. Can corporate profits go up if we off-shore manufacturing to China? Screw the workers! Can corporate profits go up if we cancel pensions, cut hours, and trim benefits? Screw the workers! Is it best to seek government favors rather than pursue good business practices? Screw the workers!
Our society is driven too much by money. Big Business and Big Government have built something that works well for them, but not for us.
Unfortunately, the American consumer showed a lot of short sightedness, choosing price over their own tax base and each other's jobs. That's what made it profitable - for them.
We may have saved a few pennies in the short term, but in the long term we got unsustainable debt, an angry young generation that can't find the jobs they trained for who are being used as fodder for the left's calls for violence, and a hostile communist government in China that is actively using our consumer dollars against us. Meanwhile, we needed to raise the debt ceiling in 2024 just to pay the interest on all of the money we borrowed.
The sad part is, we could have stopped this from the start simply by choosing American made, but far too many of us didn't care.
yep
But they didn't. They sold us out instead.
It was up to US to think of our tax base, our security, and our kids' futures, but far too many of us thought saving a few pennies on communist made paint brushes was more important.
Now, our money is being used by the Chicoms to build up their military and infrastructure while we have to borrow to pay for theirs. We had to raise the debt limit in 2024 just to pay the interest on all of the money we borrowed. And we sold out our own kids, who are now rioting instead of holding down the jobs they trained for and paying off their loans.
And after all of that, where are those cheaper prices we were promised?
“while we have to borrow to pay for theirs” should be “while we have to borrow to pay for ours”.
Few people would choose to live in Niagara Falls, NY if Orange County, CA was affordable for them.
“rent-burdened”
City A
earnings $6,000/month, rent $3,000/month (50% of earnings)
City B
earnings $4,000/month, rent $1,600/month (40% of earnings)
Provided one is willing to put in additional effort, expensive City A offers more after-rent earning potential than affordable City B.
City A will draw hard-working people from around the world.
“simply by choosing American made”
I had a rule in the early 1980s that I would pay up to a 10% premium for American-made.
The amount that was paid to grunts for a manufactured product was probably about 10%.
The point is mass produced products minimize labor costs no matter where the product is made. We are talking degress of cheapness.
Demand vs supply. High prices arise from lots of people bidding up the price — only a commie would not intrinsically understand that.
Cut demand.
Get rid of 20M illegals who buy stuff with YOUR taxdollars. Ditto for most of 50M visa holders.
All prices will crash.
Oh, oh, and this guarantees no more Democrats in any office — forever. A bonus!!
“High prices arise from lots of people bidding up the price”
I only have to hold out for one buyer of my house, modest but cute on a huge lot in the favored side of the area.
Teachers and policemen are considered essential workers and are generally paid enough to afford a middle-class house.
Most people who buy on my street are hard-working tradesmen, typically with wives that work in healthcare.
My neighbor Mark is almost always working, from about 7:30am to 6pm. He must work on a subcontract basis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.