they get to the point close to the end, which is that these bills are really just a subsidy to landowners, and are in the end just going to inflate the rent. then, under the guise of "targeted tax breaks", they essentially impose a values test on who is eligible for the tax breaks. families get the money, single people (and queer people, who are often the ones that need it the most) don't.

this issue has really been studied to death, and it's well understood that the most efficient approach is to just go with a gai or negative income tax, and get rid of the bureaucracy. this both saves money on administration (and the deadweight cost on this is that you're going to end up forking out billions in salaries and benefits to unionized social workers - if you want to be fiscally conservative about it) and cuts out these values tests that just end up as coercive means to enforce socially conservative value systems on the poor - to essentially restrict access to the poor people you like, while kicking the poor people you don't like out on the street. but, even a gai has to deal with inflation at some point, and aim pretty low to avoid being a tax cut for property owners.

you can't really put band aids over the fundamental relationship of property being theft. a society that upholds property as a right is going to have masses of impoverished people in it as a necessary corollary - these things are intrinsically connected, and it can't be undone without addressing the actual point. you can throw money at the poor all day, if you're not addressing the property imbalance, you're not solving anything. there are historical solutions around the idea of government housing, which actually address the issue by socializing property, but nobody wants to walk down that path, as it is in contradiction to the prevailing ideology of the washington consensus.

but, vox missed the point on purpose.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/30/18183769/democrat-poverty-plans-2020-presidential-kamala-harris-booker-gillibrand