creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
16 Feb 2012
Food and Conscience

Factory farming and its abuses were once the province of an eccentric minority that invited ridicule and scorn.… Read More.

12 Feb 2012
False Fears About a Nuclear Iran

"The stupidest thing I have ever heard." — Meir Dagan, former head of Israel's intelligence agency,… Read More.

9 Feb 2012
Appease This!

On April 1, 2001, a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter collided over the South China Sea, forcing the … Read More.

Clinton Mortgages the Future

Share Comment

You will count speed as a virtue if you're going through a home remodeling, clicking on an Internet link or drafting a cornerback. But presented with looming calamity, most of us would much prefer one that moves slowly. Which is why there is no comfort in hearing that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will be "ready on Day One."

In her campaign, she presents herself as an experienced hand with a penchant for practical solutions, suggesting that her opponent, Barack Obama, dispenses nothing but vaporous oratory detached from the real world. When it comes to the mortgage meltdown, though, her policy rests on the assumption that upon arriving in the Oval Office, she'll open the closet and find a magic wand. Obama, by contrast, acknowledges the bitter truth that when government regulators clamber into a carriage, it can easily turn into a pumpkin.

Their approaches to the problem are not an aberration but a symptom of a larger difference. Obama is not a staunch free marketeer, but he grasps the value of markets and shows some deference to economic laws. Clinton, however, tends to treat both as piddly obstacles to her grand ambitions.

You don't have to take that from me. Some on the left see the Illinois senator as suspiciously unenchanted by their goals and methods. Robert Kuttner, an economics writer and co-editor of The American Prospect, scorns Obama's advisers as "free-market guys who want to use markets to somehow solve social problems, which is like squaring a circle." New York Times columnist Paul Krugman denounced Obama because his health care and fiscal stimulus plans "tilted to the right" and concludes he is "less progressive" than Clinton.

If progressive means issuing dictates that prevent informed people from entering into mutually agreeable and economically valuable transactions, that is undoubtedly true. Many liberals prefer to rely more on command and control. Nowhere is the contrast between the Democratic contenders more vivid than on how to deal with the fallout from the epidemic of mortgages gone bad.

Clinton has a stunningly simple solution, as stated in one of her TV ads: "freeze foreclosures" for 90 days and "freeze rates on adjustable mortgages." Those are a perfect answer, assuming this is the question: How can the government reward irresponsibility, discourage mortgage lending and raise the cost of financing a home?

After all, it's easy to pass a law prohibiting lenders from foreclosing.

But the first result of that would be a lot more borrowers deciding that paying the mortgage is no longer the highest priority. Those who have practiced strenuous frugality in order to meet their monthly obligations would get nothing, and those who behaved recklessly would prosper.

The second result would be to choke off the flow of credit. When a bank makes a loan, it needs some assurance of being repaid. When it isn't, foreclosure offers a way to minimize its loss. If Clinton blocks that option for a time, banks will be markedly less eager to offer loans — particularly for anyone with a less than perfect credit history.

Then there is the matter of the interest rates future borrowers will have to shoulder. Lenders offer adjustable-rate mortgages, which carry low rates in the early years, in the hope of reaping higher rates later on. If a President Clinton were to void the second part of these deals, many mortgage companies would stop offering the first part, in effect saying: Freeze this.

Obama is not willing to let this turbulent market sort itself out without the intervention of government, but he offers nothing remotely as alarming as Clinton's dual freeze. Among his main proposals are tougher enforcement of laws against fraud and deception and mandates for "easy-to-understand information" for borrowers — ideas few advocates of economic freedom would find objectionable.

More important than what he advocates is what he doesn't. His chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago, told me that Obama thinks "we shouldn't have a blanket policy of bailing out everyone." In formulating remedies, Goolsbee says, "you have to think how not to reward bad behavior."

In Clinton's world, that is not a concern: The government can take from the lenders and give to the borrowers without any unwanted consequences. Now who's telling the fairy tale?

To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
In your column in our local "rag" and it is. "Implausible Nuclear Terrorism" you point out that after 9/11 the American people were waiting for the next strike. al-Qaida and their friend haven't had to mount another strike. The whole idea of terrorism is to have the object change their way of life and the attack of 9/11 was so successful that this country will never be the same. I remember about 10 years ago being in London and the IRA were blowing up trash cans and setting bombs in department stores. I was on the tube and we were passing through Swiss Cottage tube station where a bomb had just gone off. The rain didn't stop but went through the station slowly to the next stop. Passengers for Swiss Cottage got off and walked back. No one was upset or frantic and the IRA didn't change the way the British lived--they lost. al-Qaida has won because the powers that be in the U.S. have used fear with a stupid population to pass all sorts of idiot laws, create a Dept of Homeland Security and in general run around like a chicken with it head cut off mouthing all sorts of terror tactics. I have to go back to 1940 when the Londoners were under the Blitz and the equanimity with which they stood up to the German onslaught. We could learn a lot for them.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Norman Casey
Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:02 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Steve Chapman
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012

2 Sep 2007 Putin and Stalin: Revising Reality

4 Sep 2011 Wired for Overregulation

20 Sep 2009 Race and the Opposition to Obama