|
After signing the 'American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003' Bush
added, "We want people to be fully aware of what it means to buy a home
and what it takes". The contradiction, if otherwise unclear, was that the
President was signing a law that gave free money to those who could not afford
to buy a home, and then he planned to educate them about the hard
work, savings, and planning that is required to buy a home.
With Wall Street packaging and selling mortgage reset time bombs, rating agencies
dolling out A's first and asking questions never, and many homeowners essentially
signing future default notices before their new home purchases were finalized,
Bush's efforts at expanding homeownership since 2003 have gone unnoticed as
the subprime debacle widens. Unfortunately, so have the costs of funding Bush's
homeownership initiatives. What should not remain unnoticed is the irony of
it all: near the height of the housing boom Bush wanted to do everything he
could to boost already record high homeownership rates, but now, as the boom
turns to bust, Bush is eying a plethora of emergency policy moves to simply
try and keep ownership rates stable. You can not help but wonder whether or
not many Americans would have been better off if Bush simply left the mortgage
market alone.
Some are wondering exactly that. Notably, United States congressman Ron Paul,
who was one of the few who stood up to tackle what was then largely hailed
as a good new law:
"The
American dream, as conceived by the nation's founders, has little in common
with H.R. 1276, the so-called American Dream Downpayment Act. In the original
version of the American dream, individuals earned the money to purchase a
house through their own efforts, oftentimes sacrificing other goods to save
for their first downpayment. According to the sponsors of H.R. 1276, that
old American dream has been replaced by a new dream of having the federal
government force your fellow citizens to hand you the money for a downpayment." PDF
File
Whether talking about 'what it takes' to buy a home or keep inflation under
control, Ron Paul is required reading for free market thinkers. But alas, this
is reading that nearly all U.S. policy makers - perhaps more concerned with
buying votes or borrowing/spending now at the expense of future generations – neither
read nor deploy.
"The temptation to print and spend money with impunity, like the temptation
to max out lines of credit, is too strong for government to resist." High
Risk Credit - Aug 20, 07
As Bernanke, Bush, and others despondently stumble through their bailout handbooks
in search of the recipe needed to avert disaster, what should be asked
is whether the latest 'crisis' in subprime is the problem or the repetitive
bailout policies themselves. The real lesson may not be that U.S. citizens
are too naïve and gullible to live in an ownership society, or that Wall
Street can not be trusted to mediate a vibrant marketplace, but that policy
makers, due to their inherent loathing of free market principles, are forever
mixing together costly recovery and bailout packages under the guise of keeping
the financial soufflé from caving in.
Unfortunately, with Mr. Paul unlikely to become the next President of the
United States, and a groundswell of voices begging the Fed to cut interest
rates rather than permanently close its doors (and windows), no authority maker
is likely to try and placate a society and financial system that is medicated
on instant gratification. Instead Big Brother will continue to let the children
play, fight, and throw tantrums, all the while looking down with a false sense
of responsibility emblazoned on their borrowed Chinese made shirts.
For the record, and although he is not being blamed for today's crisis, Bush's
policies of increasing U.S. homeownership rates failed; not because a few people
who otherwise could not afford to got a new home, but because he added to the
hazardous social shortcoming that says what comes after recess is a free lunch.
|