Is the Government Rewarding Irresponsibility?
I’ve made many posts here regarding my opposition to an alarming trend that I’ve seen growing rampantly here in Washington, a trend that all Americans will pay for, but only a few will reap the benefits of – government bailouts.
While the unorthodox treatment that Bear Stearns got from the Federal Reserve a few weeks ago was enough to cause short-term chaos in financial markets across the globe, the more troubling bailout, without a doubt, is one aimed at the mortgage markets.
Anyone who has received some sort of formal education understands that you shouldn’t borrow more money than you can afford, and more importantly shouldn’t sign a contract where you aren’t 100% confident of the specified terms and/or rates.
Even so, the government has felt the need to take responsibility for the actions of these irresponsible borrowers, and seems to think that using taxpayer money to stabilize these loans is going to be the best approach to preventing more long-term economic turmoil.
While I haven’t seen seen one good bailout proposal, I’m pleased to see that there are concerned citizens who are rallying against this showing of fiscal irresponsibility by both a select group consumers and the government.
What’s even more pleasing is that many of these people who are rallying against these bailouts aren’t usual suspects.
The impressive part of this movement isn’t the families with the 2.5 kids, white picket fence in the suburbs, etc, who have made smart financial decisions and are usually the first to rally against foolish government intervention. Sure, many of them are on board with opposing these bailouts, as they should be, but the really impressive thing is the number of renters who are following what is happening and realizing that they are getting screwed more than any other group of people.
A few weeks ago, FreedomWorks launched a site called AngryRenter.com, with the goal of bringing attention to how renters are being affected by these ridiculous bailouts.
Keep in mind that renters, for a variety of reasons, have chosen not to buy homes. For many, they are waiting for the market to get better, for others they are waiting until they have more money and for some, they just don’t want to deal with the responsibility.
(here is a great video by Peter Suderman summing things up)
Regardless of their rationale, is their any argument that can justify sticking the burden of covering these bad mortgages on people who don’t even have them? There is absolutely no argument for that.
Of course, the early results of AngryRenter.com clearly show that this is now an issue that has upset many, and if Congress wants to prevent their less than stellar approval rating from reaching new depths, they might want to pay attention.
In only a few weeks, AngryRenter.com has already gathered nearly 12,000 signers to their petition, and I don’t see any reason why that number wont grow exponentially in the near future.
I urge everyone to check out the site, sign the petition and even forward it on to your friends.
It’s tough to get Congress to pay attention to even the biggest issues sometimes, but when you present them with tens of thousands of names, they usually wake up… at least the good ones do.
Virtual Fence Yields Literal Disaster
I know I’ve said on many occasions that the government is notorious for wasting money; however you would think that when it came to something as simple as the concept of a fence, they would be able to get it right eventually.
I guess those of us that made that assumption have been proven wrong.
After a showing of unwavering pressure from border states over the past five years, the United States government found itself in a position where it finally had to make it look like it was doing something to secure our borders, while not upsetting certain groups of people.
What’s the easiest way for the government to make it look like it is doing something? Spend a lot of money on things that don’t work.
Instead of taking the most cost effective approach to patching the many holes in our borders, the Department of Homeland Security gave Boeing $20 million to build a tower that would alert border agents when someone was illegally crossing the border.
CNN.com is reporting that this was another wasted sum of money by the government:
TUCSON, Arizona (AP) — The government is scrapping a $20 million prototype of its highly touted “virtual fence” on the Arizona-Mexico border because the system is failing to adequately alert border patrol agents to illegal crossings, officials said.The move comes just two months after Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced his approval of the fence built by The Boeing Co. The fence consists of nine electronic surveillance towers along a 28-mile section of border southwest of Tucson.
Boeing is to replace the so-called Project 28 prototype with a series of towers equipped with communications systems, cameras and radar capability, officials said.
Wouldn’t the later proposal from Boeing have been a better solution anyway?
Furthermore, how much fencing do you think that $20 million could buy?
If we just looked at solutions that have worked for other countries, like Israel, we would see that for $20 million, we could develop the start of what could be one very secure border.
Check out this image:
This layout definitely looks much more effective than anything I’ve seen the United States try and build on our border.
What’s even more impressive is the cost.
For this fence, it only cost Israel $2 million per kilometer. That sounds like a lot, but just imagine how much money the United States spends each year ignoring this problem.
The U.S. government knows that they could be doing a much better job of securing our borders, and they know exactly how well things have worked in Israel.
Even with the knowledge they have on how they could solve this problem, they just throw in enough money to make it look like they are really trying.
Temporarily it will please both sides, but eventually people will see what is really happening and bring back the pressure.