Saturday, November 26, 2011

Andrew McCarthy: Republicans Subsidize Mansions

Andrew McCarthy in National Review:
"Almost two weeks ago, when they figured no one was watching, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives, by an overwhelming 292–121 margin, voted to increase funding for the Federal Housing Administration. Just as government debt hit $15 trillion, edging closer to 100 percent of GDP, these self-proclaimed scourges of spending decided Uncle Sam should continue subsidizing mini-mansion mortgage loans — up to nearly three-quarters of a million dollars."
. . .
"Not housing for the poor, mind you, nor even for the middle-class — luxury homes. The real-estate market is so depressed at the moment that the median sale price of a single-family home is less than $170,000. Even in high-cost areas like Los Angeles, the Wall Street Journal reports, it has plunged to less than $325,000. Yet the Republican House — installed by the Tea Party in a sea-change election to be the antidote to Obamanomics — decided the taxpayers should guarantee FHA loans up to $729,750. Had they not acted, the public obligation would have been reduced to “only” $625,500 per FHA loan — couldn’t have that, right?"
. . .
"If Republicans really thought the growth of government was unsustainable, they’d stop growing it. As it is, the truly profound difference on “a vision of government” is between those who believe that government “growth” is unsustainable versus those who realize that government is unsustainable as is — those who grasp that throwing untold billions at Baby Boomer palaces is not compassion; it is the grandest of larceny, robbing our children and grandchildren of the chance for prosperity our forebears laid down their lives to preserve for us.

"It was only a decade ago that we were getting by on 18.2 percent of GDP, and only about half a decade ago that a $400 billion annual deficit (about a trillion less than what we’re running now) was considered unconscionable. Where are the Republicans who are going to tell us how we get back to that?"
. . .
"Obama Democrats demagogue about the need to balance spending cuts with tax hikes. Republicans predictably respond that they were willing to compromise. When you are $15 trillion in debt, a debate over whether we should borrow another $6 trillion or another $5 trillion is not an exercise in compromise. It is an exercise in insanity."
[emphasis added]


MAX Redline said...

That really is insanity, though unsurprising; for some time I've noted that Republicans, once elected, often behave precisely like little Democrats.

I was reading earlier today that California's economy is driving people out. One woman interviewed in the story described moving to Portland because even with multiple room-mates, she couldn't afford the rents in Orange County.

So by all means, let's borrow more money and hand it off to rich folks who so badly need it. Sheesh....

T. D. said...

"let's borrow more money and hand it off to rich folks"

The problem in a nutshell. Thanks, Max.

James Nicholas said...

Well gentleman, it's not so much that the Republican's appear to be pro-rich people, but that they act in a manner which shows they are pro-big government. We need an alternative, and the Republican party is the only opportunity we have providing the country with a political alternative. But step one will be saving the Republican party, and making it the party of limited government, not big-government light, or big-government for rich people. As McCarthy says:

"We ought to be doing everything in our power to tee up the 2012 election as a high-noon showdown between Obama’s insatiable Leviathan and a GOP vision of fiscally sane, constitutional conservatism."

I'll tell you what I love about Sarah Palin, which is that she totally gets that this is the problem we are facing as a nation, that it is a life or death question for us, and the American people are capable of overcoming the ruination that the left has generated in their power grab. And she has no bones about letting people know that. We need these same attitudes to be prerequisite for positions of power in the GOP party leadership.

T. D. said...

Well said, JN. Bigger government and spending, spending, spending are the "life or death question for us".

I'm with you on Sarah Palin. She sticks by her principles. I wish she were running, but I also trust that she is wise and following God's leading about running.