The Obama administration has spent a record $3 billion over the last two years cleaning up its properties for rent and property taxes, but it may not have had a lot of success with those expenses.
So why are they still taking so much out of people’s pockets?
That’s the question we’re looking at in this piece from The Washington Times, in which we examine how the Obama government’s housing policy has helped people who’ve been out of work pay their rent and pay their property taxes.
The president’s approach to housing is a major issue in this election.
In a speech in March, he promised to build 3 million housing units by 2021, and he’s made no indication that he plans to do so.
He has promised to put $2.7 trillion into housing over the next decade.
But since January, housing spending has actually declined slightly.
Even if you assume that the federal government has spent $3.5 trillion on housing over that time, that would only bring the total cost of those policies to $2,933 per household.
If you were to divide the total number of households in the country by the total amount of housing spending, you’d get a figure that is $1,092 per household, or about 1.6% of the nation’s annual income.
That’s a pretty good ratio, considering that the median household income in America is about $53,000, which is well below the national median income of $70,000.
So how much of this money does the federal governments have to put toward housing?
The president has pledged to put a total of $4.8 trillion toward housing over a decade.
If you assume he’ll be able to achieve his goal of putting 2.5 million more units built per year, that brings the total for housing spending to $7,988 per household over that period.
For those of you keeping score at home, that’s about $8,200 per household per year.
Of course, you could just ignore the housing spending totals and just look at the actual cost of the policies.
But the numbers are pretty interesting, so let’s take a closer look at what that spending looks like.
Let’s start with housing spending.
Before the housing boom, the federal housing program was the centerpiece of President Obama’s economic stimulus.
It gave homeowners a temporary reprieve from foreclosure, paid for with taxes and fees, and helped many people buy their homes for low-income people.
But in the wake of the financial crisis, it was cut to a fraction of its original size and, in some cases, completely eliminated.
As of January, federal housing spending had fallen to just $4 billion.
Now, it has actually grown since then.
The total cost per person of the housing program is $6,200, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
That’s actually an improvement over the $4,500 per person figure before the crisis, but still not as good as the national average of $10,200.
It is possible to make an argument that the housing programs have done better than the rest of the economy.
For one thing, housing has been a key driver of economic growth.
According to the National Association of Realtors, the number of Americans living in rent-controlled apartments is at its highest point in decades.
But even if that’s true, the overall housing market is still in a pretty weak position.
For the median American household, there are just under 8,000 people living in rental housing.
Furthermore, the housing markets in most states have been in such disarray that it has made it hard for the Federal Housing Administration to find enough buyers to take on all the mortgage loans that are on the market.
And while the number has risen dramatically since the crisis hit, the supply of housing available in some states has not been as great as it once was.
And even if the federal agencies were to find a way to find buyers for all the properties they need, there is still a big problem.
In states like California, for example, there’s still a massive shortage of housing units.
In Los Angeles County, there were only 8,200 units available in July of last year.
And according to a recent report from the American Housing Association, there aren’t enough units available for rental housing in all the U.S. cities.
The housing markets could do better.
At the end of the day, it’s still worth it to make sure you’re getting the best deal possible.
The Federal Reserve is still looking at how to make more housing available for low income families and families in need, but the government’s approach is starting to look like a success.
Read more from The Hill: Obama’s housing policies are a success, but critics say it could have been better.