The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Biden's Badly Flawed New Housing Plan
It combines nationwide rent control with modest supply-side measures potentially freeing up "underutilized" federal property for housing construction.

Today, the Biden Administration issued a new housing policy plan. It combines a really awful idea -nationwide rent control - with a modestly good one: using "underutilized" federal government property to build new housing. Here is the White House summary of the rent control proposal:
President Biden is calling on Congress to pass legislation presenting corporate landlords with a basic choice: either cap rent increases on existing units to no more than 5% or lose valuable federal tax breaks. Under President Biden's plan, corporate landlords, beginning this year and for the next two years, would only be able to take advantage of faster depreciation write-offs available to owners of rental housing if they keep annual rent increases to no more than 5% each year. This would apply to landlords with over 50 units in their portfolio, covering more than 20 million units across the country. It would include an exception for new construction and substantial renovation or rehabilitation.
Economists and housing policy experts across the political spectrum recognize that rent-control is an extremely harmful policy, because it reduces the quantity and quality of housing. Don't take my word for it. Take that of such progressives as Paul Krugman, and Jason Furman, former chair of Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, who condemns the Biden proposal because "Rent control has been about as disgraced as any economic policy in the tool kit. The idea we'd be reviving and expanding it will ultimately make our housing supply problems worse, not better." A recent meta-study in the Journal of Housing Economics reviews the extensive evidence of rent control's negative effects.
In fairness, as Reason housing policy writer Christian points out, the plan includes a number of mitigating elements that might reduce its harmful impact. It only applies to landlords with over 50 housing units, and exempts new housing construction and renovation. Also, it limits rent increases to 5% per year, instead of imposing a tighter cap. Still, the plan would apply to many millions of housing units (the White House claims the figure is 20 million), which will predictably reduce quality and supply.
If the rent control plan has a saving grace, it's that even the White House admits it would have to be enacted by Congress. This is unlikely to happen anytime soon. But, as
The Biden plan does include a countervailing good idea: the proposal to free up "underutilized" federal property to build new housing. Privatization of federal land could potentially do much to alleviate housing shortages. But it is far from clear how much land the administration actually proposes to make available for this purpose. It's also not clear whether they plan to privatize the land in order to allow private developers to build on it, or whether they envision some form of public housing, or a combination of both. Public housing has a terrible track record. Privatization is a much superior option.
Another frustrating element of the Biden plan is that the president knows - or at least used to know - that the best way to alleviate housing shortages is to cut back on zoning rules and other land-use restrictions blocking the construction of new housing. In 2020, he ran on a platform of using federal grant conditions to pressure state and local governments to do just that. But he has largely failed to carry out those ideas during his time in office.
In his article on the new Biden plan, notes that Trump and newly minted VP candidate J.D. Vance also have some awful housing-related policies. Most obviously, their plan to implement mass deportation of undocumented immigrants would wipe out much of the housing construction work force, and thereby predictably reduce construction and make it more expensive (this effect, plus other negative impacts of deportation on housing outweighs the potential benefit of a reduction in demand). Unlike the Biden rent control plan, the GOP deportation policy could likely be enacted without major new legislation, which makes it even more of a menace. Vance's idea of restricting corporate investment in housing would also predictably reduce supply.
But the awfulness of Trump and Vance's ideas in no way justifies Biden's rent control plan.
The primary goal of the Biden rent control plan may not be to alleviate housing shortages, but to bolster the president's reelection campaign. Studies suggest rent control is popular among voters, many of whom don't understand basic economics. Exploiting widespread public ignorance is a ubiquitous, time-honored political strategy. But that doesn't make it right.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No democrat has ever seen a 'problem' without deciding a new national law and agency is the only solution.
May I suggest a modest amendment?
"This law is null and void in any year inflation exceeds 2%, and in any of those years, the entire budget allocation for the department of housing is forfeit to the treasury, to be directed solely at reducing the national debt."
This law is null and void in any year inflation exceeds 2%, and in any of those years, the entire budget allocation for the department of housing is forfeit to the treasury, to be directed solely at reducing the national debt.
But then the government will simply change how inflation is calculated and it will never exceed 2%.
That's more or less how they've dealt with COLA.
No it's not.
You simply refuse to understand anything about price indexes. It's all one of your massive government-wide conspiracies.
In light of Joe’s confused rant…er speech before the NAACP yesterday an additional amendment is required. Apparently the cap is set at $55. At least according to the Big Guy.
"National rent control - it's like local rent control only worse!"
This is not rent control -- rent control has never included tax benefits or breaks to landlords, only fiat based rental rates.
What Ilya -- king of free markets -- is not mentioning here is the legitimacy of the related tax breaks. A true believer in free markets would be equally opposed to tax breaks (as opposed to reduction in overall taxation), and for the same reasons.
And then I think you will find the heavy thumb of government in all of this, from the initial financing of the construction to the ongoing Section 8 payments the owners receive. Merely eliminating Section 8 would dramatically drop rents in almost all markets because the units would otherwise sit empty -- NO ONE would actually pay what they're getting for those units, in the condition they are, in the neighborhoods they are located in.
Since Biden seems to be dusting off the Nixon/Ford playbook for handling inflation, how long before he starts handing out WIN buttons?
He'll wear his upside down, and every sane person will silently add "-ROD".
Will the plan include property tax control?
The proper title for this post should read:
Biden's Badly Flawed Administration.
No. This is politicians acting bravely. Command and control. Tax increases. They self-describe as brave for this.
Spending decreases, or hell, holds? Restricting tax increases? Nah. Not brave.
Actually, at least in Massachusetts, property tax on commercial property is relative to income.
"If the rent control plan has a saving grace, it's that even the White House admits it would have to be enacted by Congress."
Sort of like Obama admitted that DACA would have to be enacted by Congress, you mean? How did that work out?
...or that the Paris Accords or JCPOA needed to be approved by the Senate.
It seems particularly fatuous to place any reliance on this admission, when it's coming from the same administration that has refused to take seriously repeated court rulings striking down it's efforts to forgive student loan debt.
What exactly gives Somin the impression that Biden actually cares about legality, or the limits of his constitutional authority?
Democrats aren’t like that EVIL BAD ORANGE GUY Professor Trump and his hacky Sidekick JD Robin! They would NEVER do that!
X0XOX0,
Ilya
P.S. The “L” in Ilya doesn’t stand for “Libertarian” it stands for “LOVES ME SOME DEMOCRATS” teehee
P.P.P.S. Hunky Hunter invited me over for a sleepover, and we got into a tickle fight! I can't believe my Mom said I could go!
re: loans.
Different law relied on means a different case. Maybe you can prove pretext, but not since you have a sample size of exactly 2.
DACA does not have the sweep of the DREAM Act. It has no path to citizenship. Almost as though Congress's authority was needed for that.
You used to at least hew to the formalities.
How does prosecutorial discretion become an affirmative benefit with costs incurred?
Impressive "whataboutism" at the end.
Ilya glosses over a significant aspect of the proposal: the cap being tied to the ability to claim a more aggressive depreciation schedule on taxes. In other words, landlords can opt-out and can deduct depreciation on a longer amortization schedule.
I’m not a fan of rent or price controls, but the economic impact of this “optional” aspect might be significant, perhaps blunting some of the typical impacts on supply that Ilya identifies as the reasons why rent controls are problematic. It’s a shame Ilya doesn’t devote some of his copy to discussing that with some detail. If he’s going to continue to insist we read the entirety of his posts on the top page, at least he could make them more informative and less of a polemic.
Can we apply the same nuance principle to Ilya's posts about Trump, maybe?
And annual increases at 5% will not have quite the deleterious effect that a tighter cap would have.
As to Vance's mass deportation policy, it would certainly slow the pace of new building, initially, but it might free up existing properties at a higher rate. And the economy would adjust - unemployment down and wages up, construction not being one of the jobs Americans won't do. Same for the trucking industry. Lots of new work for immigration attorneys.
(I'm not arguing in favor of either policy, just saying the issues are complex and not well suited to short ideologically driven blog posts.)
Trucker's wages, in actual dollars, are what they were 40 years ago when a new car cost $9,000.
Truckers' wages have fallen in the wake of trucking deregulation (and probably the decline of unions).
It is true that deregulation in 1980 started the process. And the decline in unions was a direct consequence. Coupled with China becoming the worlds manufacturing plant, the cost of everyday items today is drastically less than it was at the time (at least before Covid inflation). Whether that's a fair tradeoff for the loss in trucker's income is another complicated topic, I'm sure Ilya would approve...
I work in an industry that uses short haul truckers. Few are direct employees, most are owner-operators. Over the decades we've seen wave after wave of new entrants, each willing to move a box for $5 less than the next guy. A very large majority are immigrants, another thing Ilya would approve of. The market place at work, but reliability is not what it was. "We've spent 50 years in a race to the bottom, and we've overshot our goal."
Shocker, Ilya ignores a crucial aspect of the law because it doesn't fit his narrative. Real estate is among the most subsidized sectors in the economy, with ridiculous tax benefits like more rapid amortization, Section 1031 exchange, income tax exemption on up to $500k of equity, etc. I'm no fan of rent control. But it is at least worth considering the benefits of the slower amortization schedule rather than completely ignoring it.
heavy Tax subsidies ? 27.5 year amortization for residential real property and 39.5 year amortization for commercial property.
1031 is only a deferral - it is also both a blessing and a curse - a curse because many times the seller will grossly overpay for the replacement property just for the perceived tax deferral - I have seen 1031's backfire numerous times for that reason.
I am not a fan of the short term w/o from commercial interior improvements,
The 500k exclusion for gain on sale of personal residence is quite reasonable since in many and likely most cases the so called gain is inflation gain and not true economic gain.
1031 is only a deferral – it is also both a blessing and a curse – a curse because many times the seller will grossly overpay for the replacement property just for the perceived tax deferral – I have seen 1031’s backfire numerous times for that reason.
"Only" a deferral? Deferring an often large capital gain can be worth a lot of money, as I have no doubt you know.
Do some go sour because an investor is so eager to take advantage that he overlooks the basic soundness of the deal? Sure, but that's no different than a lot situations where people are too quickly lured in by tax breaks.
Your argument is no different than saying the mortgage interest deduction is a bad deal because some buyers end up spending more than they should on a house.
Krugman's column that Ilya posted was from June 7 2000. What does Krugman say today?
Krugman is known to pontificate nearly complete opposite positions based on which politician promoted the idea.
Krugman is also infamous for being spectacularly wrong.
His textbooks are generally fairly good. Its is political punditry disquised as quality economic analysis with is pathetically bad.
LOL
"But the awfulness of Trump and Vance's ideas in no way justifies Biden's rent control plan."
But don't let that stop your sophistry!
Oh heavenly, monsieur Biden ***swwwwoooon***, mone me, I still love you Big Guy! (But not “The Big Guy” *wink*)
Democrats are so super mega awesome, not like that dastardly and evil villian Professor Trump!
ttfn,
Ilya “The Jew, But Not The Orthodox Kind” Somin
You're logged into the Jesus account, not the Frank account.
Frank's half Jew. The bad half. From the waist down, not the neck up.
This blog welcomes right-wing antisemitism. Because it is a white, male, right-wing blog operated by partisan cowards and hypocritical bigots. .
This blog does welcome the antisemitism - except the antisemitism is coming exclusively from the left - and it nearly dominates the current democrat/progressive party.
5% per what?
And Biden said the cap was $55.
Ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about the beauty of Japan.
Anyone catch Parkinsonian Joe say he "Talked to HIM" when asked if he talked to the head of the SS?
Of course seeing those sorry excuse for Agent Pudgy Rug Munchers who were supposed to be protecting "45", maybe it's just an honest mistake
Frank
Look at this DIE pumpkin cowering in fear.
https://imgur.com/a/tyWqWHQ
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en
Google's new communist policy. These bigtech companies have to start being regulated as common carriers.
If a catering hall has to allow a "wedding" for two men who will consummate that fake marriage by busting in each other's rears, then Youtube should have to allow all content that's not illegal.
The Volokh Conspirators are conservatives, Federalist Society members, and bigoted cowards. They thank you for your gay-bashing comments.
Why are you so sensitive on these descriptions?
"Google is communist! They should be forced to publish my speech!"
Once again proving that no one on the modern right understands what communism is, or free enterprise for that matter!
Free enterprise should not apply to monopolies. In any case, if Masterpiece Bakeshop has to make a cake to celebrate you and Kirkland's disgusting sodomy, then Google should be forced to publish any video that anyone wants.
Today, the Biden Administration issued a new housing policy plan.
Can one of the learned attorneys on the blog tell me where I can find housing policy as a power of the Federal Government?
I sure cannot find it in Article I Section 8 of The Constitution of The United States of America.
It depends on the policy, of course.
In this case, I would point you to the power to: "lay and collect taxes…”
The plan calls for withdrawing tax credits from landlords who raise rent by more than 5% per year.
In theory, of course, the government could circumvent basically every limit on itself, by levying a 100% (If not higher!) tax on all income, and then just providing tax exemptions for everybody who obeyed otherwise unconstitutional demands. After Roberts’ penaltax ruling, they wouldn’t even have to pretend they weren’t fining people for disobedience!
You'd starve to death if you didn't submit.
This is so obvious that we don’t actually follow that sort of reasoning in, for instance, 1st amendment cases.
Yes, just like the President could call everything an emergency and thus control the defense budget entirely.
Or Congress could strip jurisdiction to prevent judicial review.
We don’t chase scenarios that will never happen.
The law being theoretically exploitable by a hypothetical tyrant doesn’t make it not the law, or even bad.
Again, I repeat: We don't follow that reasoning when it comes to the 1st amendment. I don't see why we should otherwise follow it.
Dismissing the prospect that anyone will ever come along and actually exploit a procedural loophole is really stupid, it's how you guarantee loopholes WILL eventually be exploited: Hypothetical tyrants don't remain hypothetical forever.
We don't chase hypothetical tyrants wrt the First Amendment either. Cases and controversies.
It is *impossible* to plug every hypothetical hole. You can't anticipate and write down every contingency. This is why norms are so important to the functioning of a Republic. This is elementary legal theory.
To take your logic on many issues, this what the text of the Constitution says. You don't like it, amend it or get a convention going.
It's perfectly true that you can't plug every hole, I've said as much myself. But you can damned well plug them when they start leaking, and this one has been leaking for years.
YOU think it's leaking based on your own stuff in your head. But that's not an objective fact.
Your initial; argument was 'in theory...' which is at best a policy, not a legal, argument.
This reasoning, coupled with Wickard means there are no limits on the powers of the Federal Government.
William Shakespeare was right.
You asked for the authority. I pointed you to the Constitutional text.
And there are plenty of limits to federal power, you just wish there were more.
Whine more substantively. Or talk about policy. Or economics.
Or the law, but with more substance!
This proposed law uses the straight text of the Constitution. If you want to argue that's not the right interpretation make an argument about Constitutional interpretation. If you want to argue the Constitution should be written differently, suggest an amendment.
Seems to me that a good number of landlords would forgo their special tax breaks and simply raise rent even more. The real danger is that, once we start down that road, the monster will continue to grow and eventually become real rent control.
Of course you could just let landlords charge what they want, and if its too much for somebody they can find something cheaper, but I'm just a deplorable Klinger.
I’m just a deplorable Klinger.
You wear a dress to get out of the army?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/16/us/alameda-county-death-row-inmates-resentencing/index.html
No one has ever explained to me why they think the drafters of the 14th Amendment cared about jury makeups and thought the Constitution protected it
Congressional Debate on the 14th Amendment
Scroll down to the remarks of Senator Jacob Howard. Read it, and consider yourself explained.
“May 23, 1866
Senator Jacob Howard, R-MI:
. . . It will be observed that this is a general prohibition upon all the States, as such, from abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States. That is its first clause, and I regard it as very important. It also prohibits each one of the States from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within the jurisdiction of the State the equal protection of its laws.
The first clause of this section relates to the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States as such, and as distinguished from all other persons not citizens of the United States. It is not, perhaps, very easy to define with accuracy what is meant by the expression, “citizen of the United States.” . . . A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws. . . .
It would be a curious question to solve what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of each of the States in the several States. I do not propose to go at any length into that question at this time. . . . [I]t is certain the clause was inserted in the Constitution for some good purpose. . . . [W]e may gather some intimation of what probably will be the opinion of the judiciary by referring to a case adjudged many years ago in one of the circuit courts of the United States by Judge [Bushrod] Washington.4 . . . It is the case of Corfield vs. Coryell. . . . Judge Washington says: . . .
The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental, which belong of right to the citizens of all free Governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would, perhaps, be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the Government, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject nevertheless to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one State to pass through or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain notions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal, and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State, may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental, to which may be added the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised. . . .
Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be – for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature – to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. . . .“
What about being able to choose races and religions based on what you think is most likely to benefit your side automatically means that a jury is not impartial?
cared about jury makeups
Do you think they cared about Southern states keeping blacks off juries?
The 14A speaks of "due process of law." Trials, including juries, were a basic aspect of that at the time.
The Bill of Rights also was generally seen as a baseline of privileges or immunities of citizenship. Juries are referenced there repeatedly.
P/I is another part of the 14th Amendment.
The right to have a jury, not to serve on a jury.
Let's be real here, most blacks don't belong on juries.
Dykes was sentenced to death in 1995 for the murder of 9-year-old Lance Clark during a 1993 robbery in Oakland, California. Dykes admitted to the robbery and shooting, but denied it was intentional, Price said.
Yup. It was a purely unintended robbery and shooting.
To be fair, when these mentally inferior beasts hold their gats sideways, they likely are more likely to fire accidentally.
So, we supposedly have a bunch of homeless because of a shortage of housing stock. The proposed solution is to reduce the return on investment in rental properties. Seems like something that Dementia Joe and Dr Jill (EdD) might think up over the kitchen table. A senile lifetime political hack and his school teacher wife.
One big problem is that there is a hard limit on rent increases when the cost of housing has been greatly exceeding that, thanks to pumping $Trillions$ of wasteful federal spending into the economy (ultimately funded by “printing” new money). This could best be described as brain dead economics. If you want more housing stock, the solution is not to reduce ROI on building new apartments, but to increase it.
The administration could reduce demand for new housing stock by a good million units a year, by simply enforcing immigration laws.
Unsupported.
And obsessed.
Prof. Somin, I can't tell if you are just a die hard partisan, or an idiot. But the result is the same.
"Trump and newly minted VP candidate J.D. Vance also have some awful housing-related policies. Most obviously, their plan to implement mass deportation of undocumented immigrants would wipe out much of the housing construction work force, and thereby predictably reduce construction and make it more expensive (this effect, plus other negative impacts of deportation on housing outweighs the potential benefit of a reduction in demand). Unlike the Biden rent control plan, the GOP deportation policy could likely be enacted without major new legislation, which makes it even more of a menace. Vance's idea of restricting corporate investment in housing would also predictably reduce supply."
Let's take my state, Massachusetts, as an example. Do you think the thousands of illegal immigrants here are building more housing than they occupy? Do you think they are building any housing? Think again.
Except for common laborers who schlep scraps to the dumpster or unload lumber from trucks, these folks aren't builders. It takes time, intelligence, training, and experience to be a framer, finish carpenter, plasterer, electrician, plumber, and so forth. You also need to be able to speak English! And, it would be shameful to allow them to enter the country illegally and then take jobs under false pretenses from people who have worked for years to secure these employment opportunities.
I take great offense at your assertion, and I reserve this kind of language for only very rare cases, but, fuck you!
Deport these criminal aliens. Re-invest in trade schools. Loose this notion that college is the only noble pursuit for youth. Better to have productive, proud, self-supporting tradesmen than gender studies majors whose only useful phrase after graduation is "would you like fries with that?"
That was silly reasoning, to be sure: If Trump's deportation plans actually got carried out, demand for housing would drop by several million units over the next few years. We'd actually go from a housing shortage to a housing glut!
The housing market in South America might tighten up, though.
Here's a sneak peek at the "it's a good thing actually" part that comes after "that's not happening / that's false" part.
What do you call it when immigration causes drastically higher housing prices? Easy - you call that immigration adding to U.S. housing wealth! https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/housingmap/ (These are old numbers too - 2010)
Housing "wealth" is only good for those who already own their houses, not for younger generations who want to buy them.
I don't care about the equity of lazy, stupid, selfish Boomers.
He's really very dumb, and a die hard ideologue (not partisan per se).
"Don't enforce the law! Instead, allow millions of lawbreakers to run rampant in your country because . . . because . . . because it yields lower housing prices! Yeah, that's it. Source: Trust me bro."
He has to be very dumb to think anyone doesn't see right through him or would ever buy into his nonsense.
And there's the obvious fact as you mention that mass immigration has contributed greatly to increased housing costs as well as the cost of health care, education, etc.
Prof. Somin, I can’t tell if you are just a die hard partisan, or an idiot.
“Or”?
(You can tell the era I was a child in because, to this day, I can’t focus on the words “and”, “but” or “or” without hearing “Conjunction Junction” play in my head.)
"Conjunction junction what's your function?"
Also for me.
I suppose Massachusetts could be unique, but assuming it's actually like other states, of course. Many illegal immigrants work construction.
Yeah, none of that is true, though I suppose it makes good union propaganda. There are millions of illegal immigrants working as carpenters, plasterers, concrete workers, plumbers, electrical workers, etc. And — especially since they're working with each other — they don't need much English. The project manager might need extensive training and English skills, but the regular laborers do not.
A libertarian opposes an aspect of President Biden’s housing policy which has some non-libertarian aspects. Not surprising.
As noted, Congress has to pass this thing. It is also a rather minor part of his platform. I think his support of court reform is much more notable on that front.
So, if someone thinks that alternative is very bad, I can see why they can find this specific policy bad and still support Biden/Harris. Likewise, Trump/Vance is far from libertarian anyhow, including in economic policy in various respects.
Plus, the proposal has aspects that even its critics find mildly useful.
Hard to think of a dumber idea than this, but that's Democrats and the left for you. I'm sure they will continue to outdo themselves.
I too think it's a poor idea. Among other things, rent control hurts people looking for housing, because current tenants tend not to move if they have locked in below market rates. That leads to all kinds of monkey business.
Still, it's far from the worst economic idea proposed by the candidates, and the majority of the bad ones are from Trump.
Just say this. Pretty amazing.
https://x.com/justin_hart/status/1813575419549061450?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1813575419549061450%7Ctwgr%5Ef7916281274355afb68f8928d8e70b273593287c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F661164%2F
Can we agree he is a fool, always has been.
"Hi, I know I made a tereriible mistake but now I've --not investigated or reasoned better --- I am more like heated-up , man, you know the thing!"
Homelessness Skyrockets During Biden’s Final Year In Office
The numbers represent another disaster for the failed Biden administration.
By Ryan Saavedra
•
Dec 27, 2024