The Affordability Conundrum

According to a recent online post by CNBC, “Affordability is a buzzword right now.” That certainly seems to be the case, but what does affordable mean? Dictionaries define affordable as “able to be afforded” or “having a cost that is not too high”—but those definitions are so ambiguous they have little meaning. Despite its current popularity, affordability seems clearly to be a conundrum. 

Marked cost-of-living increases in the past year have sparked widespread discussion about affordability. In campaigning for the 2024 election, the current POTUS promised that “starting the day I take the oath of office, I will rapidly drive prices down and we will make America affordable again.”

In a September 2024 speech, Trump promised to get gasoline “below 2 dollars a gallon,” and said this would bring down “the price of everything from electricity rates to groceries, airfares, and housing costs.” Obviously, that hasn’t happened, so what the president says about affordability and what a majority of the voters perceive is a distinct part of the affordability conundrum.

In 2025, gas prices did go down by about 30 cents a gallon (from an average of $3.10 to about $2.80). That has made gasoline more affordable, but $2.80 is a long way from below $2.00—and that decrease is mostly due to lower crude oil prices and weaker global demand rather than due to something Trump did or didn’t do. No president has much influence on gas prices.

As you know, the Olympic Winter Games are now in progress, but the drawing for inexpensive tickets for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles went on sale last month. In fact, I decided to write this blog article when I saw an announcement saying, “Affordable tickets for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics start at $28.”

But, I thought, what about travel and lodging expenses? What is the use of buying an affordable ticket if you don’t have enough money for traveling to LA or staying in a hotel there? According to AI, it is estimated that round-trip flights from Kansas City (where I live) to LA will likely be $400 to $800, and a two-night stay in a LA hotel about the same—a minimum of $1,200 for one person!

So, the “affordable” ticket ends up not seeming so affordable after all.

What about “affordable housing”? There is much in the news media about that issue currently. What is termed affordable housing typically limits costs to 30% of household income to avoid burdening limited means. Obviously, what is “affordable” for middle- and top-income households is certainly not affordable for low-income families.

“Affordable groceries” also depends on one’s income. From what I have found, low-income households spend almost 33% of their after-tax income on food. According to 2023 USDA data, those in the lowest income quintile have an average after-tax income of $16,171, and the average spent annually for food was $5,278.

That percentage of income far exceeds the 10-15% typical for median earners and especially the slightly more than 8% for high earners. And my guess is that the median- and certainly the high-earners eat far better (more delicious and more nutritious) food than low-income people. So, affordability relates to far more than just how much something costs.

The most reasonable approach to affordability seems to be with those who advocate democratic socialism, such as Senator Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York City (the same three I also mentioned at the end of my Nov. 10 blog post).

Mayor Mamdani has repeatedly said that affordability is the central crisis facing New Yorkers, and he frames most major policy proposals around lowering the cost of living for working‑class residents. His public statements emphasize rent relief, affordable housing construction, cheaper essentials, and investments that help families stay in the city.

Mamdani links affordability to daily essentials, proposing city‑owned grocery stores to reduce food prices; fast, fare‑free buses to cut transportation costs; no‑cost childcare and support for newborns. He argues these reduce the financial burden on families and help them remain in the city. This, he says, can and will be done by levying higher taxes on those who are wealthy.

So, as we think about the affordability conundrum, let’s consider what that means for all our fellow citizens and not just for us in the middle class. And let’s continue to oppose the present administration’s policies that have shifted so much money from the lower classes to the billionaires who are profiting “bigly” from their benefactor in the White House.   

What about the Green New Deal?

Most of us are quite familiar with the term, and the significance, of what was known as the New Deal in this country. But in recent days we have been hearing about the Green New Deal, a relatively new idea that deserves serious thought and positive action.

The Proposal for a Green New Deal

On February 7, Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) introduced a Green New Deal resolution in both the Senate and House of Representatives. That 13-page resolution can be found here.

Markey (b. 1946) was a U.S. House member from 1976 to 2013 and has been in the Senate since then. Ocasio-Cortez (b. 1989), as you probably know, is the outspoken new House member who is often just called AOC.

When presented, Markey’s resolution was co-sponsored by ten other Senators—mostly names you know quite well, such as Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.

While it is a long way from something being presented as a resolution and it actually being legislated, this is surely a significant start for serious consideration of a vital issue.  

The Purpose of the Proposal

The title of the 2/7 resolution is “Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” Its purpose is to elevate awareness of the fearful realities of global warming along with other environmental issues and to set forth goals for Congress to consider over the next ten years.

Rather than being a proposal for detailed legislation, the Green New Deal (GND) resolution is a statement of what will most likely be necessary to meet the challenge of ever-worsening climate change. It presents the need for massive infrastructure programs and many other imperative actions for the creation of a sustainable future for our society and the world.

Thus, the GND resolution is a challenge to bold, creative, and long-term thinking about the most crucial issue of the present-day.

So, What About It?

One of my favorite op-ed writers is Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. His February 7 article was titled, “A ‘Green New Deal’ sounds like pie in the sky. But we need it.”

I fully agree with Robinson when he writes that “climate change is the biggest, most important story of our time. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will judge us by how well we meet the challenge, and so far we are failing. Miserably.”

Of course, there are those who staunchly oppose the proposal for a Green New Deal. The main criticism is that it smacks of socialism.

DJT no doubt had the GND in mind when he said in his SOTU message that “we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country.” He then went on to assert, “Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”

It must be recalled, though, that the New Deal proposed by President Roosevelt and enacted by Congress in the 1930s was also castigated for being socialist legislation.

Even among those who inveigh against socialism today, however, there are not many who are willing to give up their Social Security, which was one of the most important parts of the New Deal.

Just as the New Deal helped solved some of the most serious problems in American society many decades ago, the Green New Deal is a proposal for solving even potentially greater problems for the U.S., and the world, in the coming decades.

In the view from this Seat, the sooner the Green New Deal proposals are enacted, the better!