Democratic Socialists of America | The Program

In this blog, I review the DSA Program, which outlines the DSA party's objectives. I will comment on the policies and positions in each section, noting what could work, what is unclear, and how they compare with the expectations of socialist-leaning Americans described in a previous blog.

The DSA Program is published on their website here: DSA Program - Workers Deserve More!

The DSA Program is described below. This is a very long article, so I broke it into sections. Click on the links below to go straight to the part you are interested in, if you don't want to read the whole post.

• Imagine taking a day off from work in a future without capitalism
• Speaking of bills: you don’t really have them anymore
• Freedom to flourish
• Healthcare for all
• Housing for all
• Finish reconstruction
• End Mass Incarceration and Police Immunity
• Feminism for all
• Green New Deal
• End the U.S. war machine
• Free Palestine
• End Blockades, Embargoes, and Sanctions
• Abolish ICE
• Democracy for all
• A real democracy
• A democratic Congress
• Economic democracy
• Democracy at work

Imagine taking a day off from work in a future without capitalism.

"It might not feel as badly needed as it does now. You enjoy your work; it’s interesting to you, and you’re well trained for it. You work as much as you are able and no more than needed, and you would control your own labor and see it going to good use. It’s not just a job to pay the bills."

Do People Want This?

It certainly seems wonderful for everyone to have their dream job, but I didn't find supporting evidence that there is any push for Dream Jobs for Everyone! If I am missing something, please let me know in the comments.

Comments

It might not feel as badly needed as it does now. - Does this refer to not needing to take a day off, because you enjoy your work so much? If so, why do we need a centralized government to do this, and how does this centralized government achieve it? This is not explained at all.

In a free market economy, everyone is in charge of finding the job they need and like. The market determines what a job is worth because on one side, there is an employer who needs a job done, and on the other side are people (or a person) who need a job. Through negotiation, they agree on what the employer will pay and what the employee will do. Or, they part ways.

• So, who would align everyone in the whole U.S. with a job they like in socialism?

• What if jobs are needed that nobody likes? Who would do those jobs in socialism?

• And what if more people want certain jobs than are available? In socialism, how and by whom would these jobs be allocated? And what about the people who wanted those jobs but didn't get them? Would they be unemployed?

You enjoy your work; it’s interesting to you, and you’re well trained for it - This is related to the point above, and the same unanswered questions from above apply here. Regarding training, there is no description of a mechanism that would improve it. When working somewhere in the U.S. today, you get training, and it is either good, bad, or somewhere in between. In a free-market economy, companies that train their employees poorly perform worse in the market because efficiency, effectiveness, and customer service suffer. The worst companies may fold. Again, DSA doesn't describe how this would improve under centralized government.

You work as much as you are able and no more than needed, and you would control your own labor and see it going to good use - I am unclear how that differs from the current situation in the U.S. We are free to choose our careers and the jobs we are willing and able to perform based on our values and needs. So, we work no more than needed (we decide how much we want to work), we control our own labor (nobody is compelled to work in a particular industry or for any particular company or to work at all - unlike in many socialist countries where you have a duty to work). I wonder who determines the need in this socialist vision. If a central government determines the need, I argue we are better off with a free-market economy, where each person determines his/her own need.

Speaking of bills: you don’t really have them anymore.

"You have no debt. You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren’t for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities"

Do People Want This?

Comments

You don’t need health insurance. You don’t pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. - This would require the government takeover of healthcare and housing sectors. It is in line with the implementation of socialism as originally defined - a government ownership of 

Government-Run Healthcare

We can look at inefficiencies in U.S. government-run programs as a rule and decide that government-run healthcare would not be a good idea. For example, we can look at Veterans Affairs and its shortcomings, since those facilities are actually operated by the federal government (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs). If you extrapolate the long wait times, uncaring staff, and other issues to the whole country, you can get some idea of how things may turn out under socialism.

Many people point to Canada and some European countries as examples of "free healthcare," but in fact, no Western country has a fully government-run healthcare industry, and none is actually free. So, this comparison isn't very helpful in determining whether a government-run health sector would perform.

I will take a stab at Canadian, U.K., German, and French healthcare systems in a separate blog for some ideas, but those systems are not fully government-run. These countries generally have publicly financed or heavily regulated health systems, but that doesn't always mean hospitals and clinics are government-owned or government-run.

Government-Run Housing

 We do have examples of government-run housing.

Major examples of government-run housing include:

1. U.S. public housing — owned by public housing authorities, subsidized by HUD.
2. Singapore HDB flats — built and sold/leased by a government housing authority.
3. U.K. council/social housing — owned or managed by local councils and housing associations.
4. France HLM/social housing — publicly regulated social housing operated by public or nonprofit bodies.
5. Austria/Vienna municipal and subsidized housing — large city-owned and regulated housing sector.
6. Temporary or emergency government housing — shelters, supportive housing, disaster housing, and some housing for military, students, prisoners, or asylum seekers.

The evidence is mixed. Government-run housing can substantially reduce rent for eligible households, but it usually does not “save money” for taxpayers in the narrow budget sense. It normally requires ongoing subsidy, capital repair funding, tax support, or discounted land. It can save money in other public systems when it reduces homelessness, emergency medical use, shelter use, or institutionalization, but that depends on the program.

There are “free housing” examples, but they are usually targeted and limited: emergency shelter, homelessness programs, some supportive housing, disaster housing, military barracks, prison housing, and institutional housing. For ordinary civilian housing, most programs charge rent, often tied to income.

1. What counts as “government-run housing”?

There are several models that people often group together:

Your question is mainly about the first four: housing that is owned, built, managed, or heavily directed by government, not just rent vouchers.

2. United States: public housing

In the U.S., public housing is owned and operated by local public housing agencies, with federal funding and regulation from HUD. HUD describes assisted housing as including three broad categories: public housing, tenant-based assistance, and privately owned project-based housing. HUD’s subsidized-housing data also says households generally pay about 30% of income in rent, with the government covering the remainder of the housing cost. (huduser.gov)

Does it save money? Yes, for the tenants who move in. The basic rent formula means very low-income households typically pay far less than market rent. In many HUD rental-assistance programs, tenant rent is based on income rather than the unit's market price. (huduser.gov)

The limitation is access: public housing and vouchers are rationed. Many eligible households do not receive assistance because funding and units are limited.

Does it save taxpayers money? Usually no, not compared with giving similar households vouchers, at least according to older federal comparisons.

A major GAO comparison found that federal housing-production programs, including public housing and tax-credit production, often cost more per assisted unit than tenant-based vouchers. GAO’s report compared characteristics and costs across federal housing programs and raised policy questions about whether vouchers could stretch federal dollars further than production programs. (gao.gov)

That does not mean public housing is always worse. Production programs can serve goals vouchers may not achieve well, such as:

• increasing the supply of affordable units;
• housing people whom private landlords may reject;
• preserving affordability in high-cost areas;
• supporting elderly or disabled households;
• revitalizing distressed neighborhoods;
• guaranteeing units in places where vouchers are hard to use.

But in narrow federal-budget terms, publicly produced housing often has higher up-front and capital costs than subsidizing rent in existing private housing.

How does it compare with market housing?

For renters, public housing is normally much cheaper than market housing because rent is income-based. For taxpayers, comparison is harder:

• Public housing has operating subsidies.
• It also has capital repair needs.
• Older projects may require very large rehabilitation spending.
• But private-market housing serving the same extremely low-income population often exists only if vouchers or other subsidies are added.

A concrete example is NYCHA, the New York City Housing Authority. Its 2023 Physical Needs Assessment estimated $78.3 billion in 20-year physical needs across 264 properties and 161,400 apartments that NYCHA directly manages. (nyc.gov)

That equals roughly: $485,000 per apartment over the 20-year period, or over $24,250 per apartment per year in maintenance. By comparison, the National Association of Home Builders, using 2023 American Housing Survey data, estimated that owners of a single-family detached home spend about $9,240 per year on operating costs, including about $950 per year for maintenance. (nahb.org) 

3. U.S. Housing Choice Vouchers: not government-run housing, but subsidized by taxpayers

Vouchers are not government-run housing because tenants usually rent from a private landlord. But they are essential for comparison.

Under a voucher model:

• the tenant rents on the private market;
• the government pays part of the rent;
• the household generally pays rent of about 30% of adjusted income;
• the landlord remains private.

GAO has repeatedly examined voucher costs and efficiency. In its review of Housing Choice Vouchers, GAO analyzed HUD data, laws, budget documents, guidance, and interviews with HUD and housing agencies to identify efficiency options. (gao.gov)

Main takeaway: vouchers are often cheaper for the taxpayers than constructing or operating public housing, but they depend on the private market. They may fail when:

• landlords refuse vouchers;
• rents exceed payment standards;
• vacancy is low;
• units are unavailable in safe or opportunity-rich neighborhoods;

4. Singapore: Housing & Development Board public housing

Singapore is one of the world’s most famous large-scale government housing examples. The Housing & Development Board, or HDB, is a statutory public housing authority. The Singapore government says there are more than one million HDB flats, housing about 80% of resident households. (gov.sg)

Unlike U.S. public housing, Singapore’s main model is not public rental for the poor. It is mostly subsidized long-lease homeownership.

Does it work? By some measures, yes:

• It houses a very large share of the population.
• It supports mass homeownership.
• It produces large planned towns with transit, schools, shops, and public amenities.
• It gives many households an asset rather than only a rental subsidy.

Singapore’s public-sector outcomes review says the government continues to focus on keeping public housing affordable and accessible, including through cooling measures and supply management. (spor.performancereports.gov.sg)

Does it save renters or buyers money? For eligible buyers, generally yes compared with private housing, because HDB flats are subsidized and subject to eligibility rules, resale rules, and government pricing policy. Singapore’s HDB says government subsidies include price discounts for new flats and housing grants. (assets.hdb.gov.sg)

But this is not “free-market housing.” It is a managed system with:

• income ceilings;
• citizenship rules;
• resale restrictions;
• minimum occupation periods;
• ethnic-integration rules;
• government land policy;
• grants and subsidies;
• market-cooling measures.

Does it save taxpayers money? Not in the narrow budget sense. HDB reports annual deficits, and its financial review states that a government grant fully covers HDB's annual deficit. (assets.hdb.gov.sg)

So Singapore’s model appears to save many households money compared with private housing, but it does so through large public subsidies, land policy, and government planning. It is not a taxpayer-free model.

Is it “free housing”? No, not generally. HDB flats are bought or rented. The government provides subsidies and grants, but ordinary HDB housing is not free.

5. United Kingdom: council housing and social housing

What is it? The U.K. has a long history of council housing, meaning housing owned by local authorities. Today, the broader category is often called social housing, which includes local-authority housing and housing-association housing.

It is not all directly government-run. Many social homes are owned or managed by nonprofit housing associations, but they operate under government regulation and receive public support.

Does it save renters money? Yes, social rents are usually below market rents. The major benefit to tenants is lower rent and greater security compared with private renting.

Does it save taxpayers money? Generally not, but it depends on the comparison you use.

• Compared with doing nothing, social housing costs money to build, maintain, and subsidize.
• Compared with paying private-market housing benefits for very low-income renters, social housing can sometimes reduce long-term subsidy exposure if the public sector owns a durable asset.
• But building new public or social housing has high up-front capital costs and on-going maintenance costs.

A major issue in the U.K. has been the decline of council housing through sales and underbuilding. When the government sells social housing cheaply and does not replace it, it may reduce public assets and later increase reliance on private rental subsidies.

Sources:

• U.K. Department for Leveling Up, Housing and Communities / Ministry of Housing statistics;
• Regulator of Social Housing statistical data returns;
• local authority Housing Revenue Account data;
• official rent statistics from the Office for National Statistics.

6. France: HLM / social housing

What is it? France’s social housing system, often called HLM, includes public and nonprofit housing providers. It is not simply “government owns every apartment.” It is a regulated social-housing sector with public financing, rent limits, eligibility rules, and dedicated providers.

Does it save renters money? Generally yes. Social-housing rents are set below market levels for eligible households.

Does it save taxpayers money? Again, not in a direct budget sense. Social housing requires public land policy, loans, tax treatment, subsidies, and regulatory support. But it can produce durable below-market units, particularly in expensive cities where private rents are unaffordable for lower-income households.

How does it compare with market housing? The key comparison is location-specific:

• In high-cost areas such as Paris and surrounding regions, social housing may provide much lower rents than market rentals.
• In lower-cost areas, the gap may be smaller.
• Social housing can concentrate poverty if poorly located, but mixed-income and inclusionary models may reduce that risk.
• The cost to taxpayers is typically higher than using subsidies for privately owned units.

Sources:

Primary-source data would come from French government housing statistics, social-housing agencies, and official audit institutions such as the Cour des comptes.

7. Austria / Vienna: municipal housing

What is it? Vienna is a major example of long-running municipal and subsidized housing. A large share of residents live in city-owned or limited-profit housing. This is often cited as one of the strongest examples of government-involved housing in a rich country.

Does it work? The apparent strengths are:

• large supply of non-market or limited-profit housing;
• lower rent pressure for many households;
• less residualization than in systems where public housing is only for the poorest;
• mixed-income participation.

The weaknesses include:

• high public involvement;
• land and financing requirements;
• limited portability to places without Vienna’s land history, planning institutions, and political consensus.

Does it save taxpayers money? It likely does not “save money” in an annual-budget sense, because it depends on public land, financing, and long-term policy. But it may reduce the need for later rent subsidies if publicly supported units remain affordable over decades.

Sources:

• City of Vienna housing reports;
• Statistik Austria housing and rent data;
• Austrian Court of Audit reports;
• municipal budget documents.

9. What does the evidence suggest overall?

For renters

Government-run or publicly subsidized housing usually does save renters money if they qualify and receive a unit.

The most common mechanism is: Tenant rent≈30% of income rather than market rent. HUD’s subsidized-housing data explains this general rent structure for assisted households. (huduser.gov)

For Singapore, the savings are more often through subsidized purchase prices and grants, rather than low monthly rent. HDB states that the government subsidizes HDB flats through price discounts and grants. (assets.hdb.gov.sg)

For taxpayers

Government-run housing does not save taxpayers money. It requires:

• construction funding;
• land;
• operating subsidies;
• maintenance;
• capital repairs;
• grants;
• tax expenditures;
• administrative costs.

The U.S. GAO comparison found that voucher-style assistance often raised questions about whether federal dollars could be stretched further than production-based housing programs. (gao.gov)

Singapore’s HDB also shows that even a highly regarded public-housing system can run annual deficits covered by government grants. (assets.hdb.gov.sg)

Bottom line

Does government-run housing work?
Sometimes. It can work very well when it is broad-based, well-funded, well-maintained, and integrated into normal neighborhoods. Singapore and Vienna are major examples. It can work poorly when it becomes underfunded housing of last resort.

Does it save taxpayers money?
It costs taxpayers money. It may reduce other public costs, especially homelessness-related costs, but that must be measured program by program.

Does it save renters money?
Yes, usually. That is the main purpose. Tenants or buyers often pay below-market amounts.

Sources:

1. Assisted Housing: National and Local | HUD USER
2. Federal Housing Assistance: Comparing the Characteristics and Costs of Housing Programs | U.S. GAO
3. Physical Needs Assessment
4. Housing Choice Vouchers: Options Exist to Increase Program Efficiencies | U.S. GAO
5. Evolution of public housing in Singapore | gov.sg
6. Housing and Amenities | Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review 2024
7. HDB Annual Report 2021/2022 | Financial Review

Freedom to flourish

"Expand public resources to support recreation, learning, and social spaces accessible to all. Establish paid family leave for all workers, a 32 hour work week with full pay and benefits, and a living minimum wage. Provide free, quality public education from pre-K to college and cancel all student debt."

Do People Want This?

Comments

Expand public resources to support recreation, learning, and social spaces accessible to all. - 

Establish paid family leave for all workers, a 32 hour work week with full pay and benefits, and a living minimum wage. - 

Provide free, quality public education from pre-K to college and cancel all student debt. - 

Healthcare for all

"Guarantee universal healthcare at no cost to individuals, including complete access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. Expand healthcare access and quality by investing in new public hospitals and clinics. Make all medical education and training public and free."

Do People Want This?

Comments

Guarantee universal healthcare at no cost to individuals, including complete access to reproductive and gender-affirming care. -

Expand healthcare access and quality by investing in new public hospitals and clinics. -

Make all medical education and training public and free. - 

Housing for all

"Housing is a human right. Build new, publicly-owned social housing, strictly regulate investment properties, establish universal rent control, and guarantee right to counsel for all tenants."

Do People Want This?

Comments

Housing is a human right. Build new, publicly-owned social housing, strictly regulate investment properties, establish universal rent control, and guarantee right to counsel for all tenants.

Finish reconstruction

"End the legacies of slavery and colonialism. Reinforce anti-discrimination laws. Honor all treaties and tribal sovereignty. Enact reparations and massively invest in good jobs, quality housing and infrastructure in neglected minority communities."

Do People Want This?

Comments

End Mass Incarceration and Police Immunity

"Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor. Treat drug addiction and mental illness as health issues, not crimes. End qualified immunity and empower civilian oversight bodies with real authority over the police."

Do People Want This?

Comments

Feminism for all

"Socialist feminism fights for queer liberation and the freedoms of all working class women. Stop gender violence and end policies that oppress bodily autonomy and intimate life, including patriarchal restrictions on abortion, childbirth and childraising, gender expression and transition, marriage, and divorce. Ban sex discrimination and ensure fair compensation and support for all forms of labor, including care work."

Do People Want This?

Comments

Green New Deal

"Workers must lead our democratic transition to a green future. Pass a federal jobs guarantee. Implement massive investment in sustainable, publicly owned energy and transit infrastructure. Phase out the use of fossil fuels. Reclaim and repair our earth's resources for all."

Do People Want This?

Comments

End the U.S. war machine

"Defund the Department of War. End all foreign wars and close overseas military bases. Support and fully employ veterans. End immunity for U.S. war criminals and support the International Criminal Court's mandate to prosecute war crimes."

Do People Want This?

Comments

Free Palestine

"Recognize the rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of return, the right to resist military occupation, and the right to self determination in a free Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital. End all military and economic aid to Israel. Prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders responsible for the genocide in Gaza."

Do People Want This?

Comments

End Blockades, Embargoes, and Sanctions

"People around the world deserve to live their lives without U.S. interference. End economic warfare against countries whose governments act independently of the United States, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran."

Do People Want This?

Comments

Abolish ICE

"End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents' brutality. Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas."

Do People Want This?

Comments

Democracy for all

"Extend full voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents and restore the right to vote for incarcerated people and people with criminal convictions. Establish statehood for Washington D.C. and recognize the right to self-determination for all U.S. territories and colonies. Expand and protect voting rights and end voter suppression."

Do People Want This?

Comments

A real democracy

"For the working class to govern, we need a new political system. End political corruption and legalized bribery: get rid of lobbyists, dark money, and Citizens United, and publicly finance all elections. Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress."

Do People Want This?

Comments

A democratic Congress

"Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate."

Do People Want This?

Comments

Economic democracy

"Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure."

Do People Want This?

Comments

Democracy at work

"Empower workers to come together and fight the boss. Protect, expand, and enforce the rights of all workers to form, join, and strike with their unions, regardless of industry. Support union members who organize reform caucuses, democratize their unions, and take political action."

Do People Want This?

Comments