Is reliance on Section 8 an increased risk?

[Ann Bellamy]

A recently trending thread started by @Brandon Turner discussed accepting section 8 from an existing tenant but having to accept a reduced rate as a consequence.  One of the comments made by Jonathan Cope recommended 

"Enjoy the decrease in credit risk offered by government now assuming the payor position."

Is this really a decrease in credit risk?  Changes in legislation and even rule implementation within a department has been a major mover of markets.  Think Tax Reform of 1986 and the recent Safe Act and Dodd Frank.  

Personally, I choose to not accept Section 8 due to the quality of tenant and the regulation and complexity of the contracts.  If I were in Brandon's position, that would admittedly involve a very different conversation with myself.  However.  adding compliance to yet another layer of government bureaucracy is not something I would seek, and I question whether reliance on a government program is just another type of entitlement.  

If a landlord had mostly  Section 8 tenants, and the program funding was suddenly removed or reduced, how would that impact the landlord.  And the market?  I prefer to rely on my ability to screen for good tenants than on the government's ability to continue to pay me.  

What do you think?