From the left: The Wrong Housing Fix

“The racial wealth gap is a crisis neglected,” but Rep. Maxine Waters’ plan for “racially preferential down-payment assistance” for homeowners “is politically fraught,” warns Anne Kim at Washington Monthly. Waters would provide $25,000 in aid to “economically and socially disadvantaged” members of groups that “have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice” — which is “at once restrictive and an invitation to get in the ring and compete for spoils.” It also risks “diverting needed attention” from “deeper, systemic problems contributing to the racial homeownership gap.” Democrats “can try to pass a minorities-only program that will almost certainly go down in defeat and likely inflame voters,” but “a more inclusive program” with fewer benefits is “the surest path to equity.”

Conservative: Stelter’s Embarrassing Display

Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” “host Brian Stelter partook in a highly embarrassing act of professional self-debasement” by offering “schoolgirl giggles and petty star-gazing over White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki,” snarks Stephen L. Miller at Spectator USA. Stelter claims to be “a real journalist,” so acting “like an ‘Entertainment Tonight’ host with the spokesperson for the most powerful man in the world . . . should raise eyebrows.” He failed to challenge Psaki “on any of the very real and mounting issues facing this administration.” Other CNN journalists who claim to be “rigorous and dedicated” should be embarrassed.

Economist: Exorbitant Cost of ‘Infrastructure’

“The Biden White House is furiously trying to cajole congressional ­Republicans into signing off on [the president’s] $2 trillion ‘infrastructure bill,’ ” but without the “deluge of subsidies for wind, solar and electric-vehicle manufacturers,” it would only need $600 billion, notes Stephen Moore at RealClearPolitics. Indeed, Biden could “fix our roads and bridges, modernize our water and sewer systems and upgrade ports and airports” without a single dollar of new spending. He must only “take back $175 billion in blue-state bailout money” from states that are already ­reopened, “stop paying $300 a week for supplemental unemployment benefits” and reassign the $123 billion “allocated for schools and teacher unions in years 2022-2028.” His plan is thus a needless “bankrupting of America.”

Top cop: #DefundPolice = Slashing Safety Net

The #DefundPolice movement is “centered around the idea of taking from law-enforcement organizations many of the responsibilities and associated funding that have become flash points,” former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton observes at FoxNews.com, such as dealing “with the mentally ill, the homeless, the addicted.” But cops cover these areas only because American society “decided it did not have the willpower or the funds to run programs that would handle them successfully. Mental institutions closed; shelters became unwelcoming and unsafe; addiction services became underprioritized and overwhelmed.” Police departments would love “to pass along many of these responsibilities and focus on more traditional policing concerns,” but can’t “until some other fully capable entity is prepared to step into the breach.” Slashing the safety net so dramatically in the name of “small government” was misguided, but until we “make those investments again,” it’s law enforcers who supply the one last net.

Libertarian: Pandemic Proved Policy’s Limits

“The pandemic is a case for policy humility,” argues Reason’s Peter ­Suderman. When Gov. Greg Abbott lifted Texas’ mask mandate and ended capacity limits in March, he got “a flood of high-profile criticism,” with President Biden calling the decision “Neanderthal thinking.” But three weeks later, “Texas reported its lowest case rate in a year,” and there has “been no sustained uptick since.” Ditto for Florida. High officials, experts and media were “united in their belief” that Texas and Florida were reckless, but it seems “much of what was done in the name of protecting people from the coronavirus made little or no impact at all.” A “more humble approach” would “have been more cautious about sweeping restrictions on business and social activity” and “more apt to change course as new ­information” emerged.

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board