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.   

Burning Bernie

Last week Sen. Bernie Sanders made some strong statements about Pres. Trump’s nominee for Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. Sanders has been severely criticized for those utterances, even by some who are not Republicans or conservative evangelicals.

Bernie’s Statements

Russell Vought, Trump’s nominee, appeared before the Senate Budget Committee on June 8. There he was subjected to stiff questioning by Sen. Sanders. At issue was what Vought had written last year in support of Wheaton College’s decision to fire Larycia Hawkins, a tenured professor.

As you may remember, Hawkins was terminated over the controversy sparked by her donning a hijab in a gesture of solidarity with Muslims in the U.S. She also declared that Christians and Muslims “worship the same God.”

In defending Wheaton’s action, Vought wrote that Hawkins’s views were mistaken. “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology, they do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned,” he asserted.

In response to those remarks, Sanders declared that what Vought wrote was “hateful,” “Islamaphobic,” and “an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world.”

He went on to say that Vought “is not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.” Further, “This country since its inception has struggled, sometimes with great pain, to overcome discrimination of all forms, whether it is racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and Islamaphobia.”

He added, “Over the years we have made progress to becoming a less discriminatory and more tolerant society, and we must not go backwards.”  

Burning Bernie

As might be expected, Sen. Sanders was widely attacked from the religious right. Some called him bigoted against evangelical Christians.

I was surprised that even some moderate Christians were also quite critical of Bernie. For example, Amanda Tyler, the new Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), wrote critically of Sanders on June 9 (here).

Tyler averred that “Sanders’ line of questioning imposed a religious test, which is forbidden by Article VI of the Constitution.”

Michael Gerson wrote along the same lines in a June 12 op-ed piece in the Washington Post.

Agreeing with Bernie

As you might guess, there were also some who wrote in support of Sanders’ position. Here is the link to one such well-written piece, and I basically agree with it.

While I am a strong supporter of religious liberty and usually agree with the BJC, I think their (Tyler’s) criticism of Bernie missed the point.

What Vought said about Muslims, of course, he could also have said about Jews, or Buddhists—or about the large percentage of the population who do not profess faith in any religion. As a private citizen he has every right to hold to his religious convictions.

Is it not a problem, though, when people in public office openly state that everyone who has other, or no, religious beliefs is “condemned”? While personal beliefs can perhaps be intolerant, the stance of public officials must be for tolerance of people of all faiths. That, I think, was Bernie’s point.

Moreover, what Article VI of the Constitution says is that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” It doesn’t say that people can or should never be disqualified because of their religious beliefs.

Some people in the past held strong religious beliefs about the validity of slavery or of polygamy, and more recently some have held religious beliefs that condemn LGBT people. While such people have the freedom to hold such beliefs, should they be in public office?

Probably not.