Congress is so clever.
Feb. 23rd, 2012 01:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dsrtaohttp://www.alternet.org/environment/154005/one_of_congress%27s_most_damaging_%28and_racist%29_budget_cuts_that_flew_under_the_radar/?page=entire
Here's the quote, if you don't want to read it all:
The failure to solve the problem of toxic lead seems particularly odd because billions of dollars each year could be gained by eliminating lead from housing. A 2005 policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed several cost-benefit analyses, all showing that eliminating lead from housing would save billions each year because I.Q. translates into earning power which, in turn, translates into tax revenues.
Here are some numbers from the Academy’s 2005 statement. There are 4 million homes in the U.S. needing lead removal or encapsulation. At $7000 to clean an average home, eliminating the lead paint problem would require a one-time investment of $28 billion. The savings would be $43 billion in the first year and each year thereafter because children with higher I.Q.s tend to get more schooling and then jobs with higher pay. So lead remediation would pay for itself in less than one year and would then save tens of billions each year thereafter (Grosse, 2002; Gould, 2009). An investment of $28 billion is less than the U.S. has spent every six months in Iraq for the past 8 years.
Other recent studies make the same point, but you get the idea — there’s a huge amount of money to be saved by ceasing to poison our children (Gould, 2009).
To state the reverse: We are forgoing billions of dollars in income and taxes each year in order to keep our urban children poisoned.
Here's the quote, if you don't want to read it all:
The failure to solve the problem of toxic lead seems particularly odd because billions of dollars each year could be gained by eliminating lead from housing. A 2005 policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed several cost-benefit analyses, all showing that eliminating lead from housing would save billions each year because I.Q. translates into earning power which, in turn, translates into tax revenues.
Here are some numbers from the Academy’s 2005 statement. There are 4 million homes in the U.S. needing lead removal or encapsulation. At $7000 to clean an average home, eliminating the lead paint problem would require a one-time investment of $28 billion. The savings would be $43 billion in the first year and each year thereafter because children with higher I.Q.s tend to get more schooling and then jobs with higher pay. So lead remediation would pay for itself in less than one year and would then save tens of billions each year thereafter (Grosse, 2002; Gould, 2009). An investment of $28 billion is less than the U.S. has spent every six months in Iraq for the past 8 years.
Other recent studies make the same point, but you get the idea — there’s a huge amount of money to be saved by ceasing to poison our children (Gould, 2009).
To state the reverse: We are forgoing billions of dollars in income and taxes each year in order to keep our urban children poisoned.
Where I go all wonk-y
Date: 2012-02-23 06:42 pm (UTC)(See also: 'cheap labor conservatives'.)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-02-23 07:08 pm (UTC)It's similar in industry; we can show them all sorts of ways that, for instance, inspecting their wheels more regularly and truing them more frequently will actually save them money in the long run (and not all that long) but that money is saved over the entire company, while the cost for inspecting and truing is borne by one department, so from their point of view we're asking for more work and money for no gain on their part.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-02-23 07:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-02-23 07:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-02-23 09:02 pm (UTC)Of course, we in MA are still much more protected than most states, by some of the strictest lead laws around. (Says the former landlord, who had to deal with it.)