Today, the Gazette echoed in more detail our A Lot of Fine Print post.
The point that we and the Gazette make is that Mark Udall and Ed Perlmutter threw any requirement for personal responsibility out the window when they sponsored legislation that bails out the folks who bet their fortunes that they could profit handsomely from the inflation in their McMansions.
The Gazette added value and additional points to our essay:
Is the government only going to intervene on behalf of at risk borrowers, leaving those who have already been foreclosed-upon out in the cold? If such assistance is predicated on the idea that these people are all the hapless victims of unscrupulous lenders, aren’t the already-foreclosed-upon entitled to something, as well? Will government aid be means tested, or also go to the couple earning $200,000 who bought a mansion during the boom times? Couldn’t the creation of this new government safety net actually encourage delinquencies and defaults, once people know Uncle Sam will help them out of the jam? And what unfortunate new precedent might we be setting? Will the government next come to the aid of those who get in over their heads with credit cards?
There was a good rationale for the savings & loan bailout. Decades before that debacle, the government had required savings & loans to provide government insurance on savings accounts. This sub-prime problem has no such rationale. The government has no business rescuing speculators, even those dumb enough to speculate on their own home, from their own greed.