News   Jul 04, 2024
 450     1 
News   Jul 04, 2024
 524     0 
News   Jul 04, 2024
 556     1 

Is the U.S. Housing Mess Headed our Way?

yyzer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,444
Reaction score
386
Location
Mississauga
from today's Globe, investor is going to eat this up....

Is the U.S. housing mess headed our way?

PAUL WALDIE

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

January 19, 2008 at 12:00 AM EST

CLEVELAND, Ohio — When Sam Robertson took out a second mortgage on his home in suburban Cleveland three years ago, he couldn't believe how easy it was. The interest rate seemed low, the approval process was quick and soon he had a $61,000 (U.S.) loan, backed by a house worth about $100,000.

Then Mr. Robertson, 55, lost his job at a plastic-bag company. He found temporary work, but he got behind on payments just as the interest on his loan automatically reset at a higher rate. This week, a letter came. The house his family has lived in for 27 years is in foreclosure.

"It's very embarrassing and very demeaning to me. I was going for the quick fix . . . I wish that I had never fallen for that."

Versions of Mr. Robertson's plight are being played out across Cleveland, which has become the epicentre for the problems plaguing the U.S. housing sector. For months, many economists hoped that the troubles would be contained to that market, but it is now clear that the pain is spreading throughout the U.S. economy . . . and across the border.

"We will feel the sting in Canada," says Michael Gregory, a senior economist at the Bank of Montreal's BMO Capital Markets.

Foreclosures in Cleveland have soared from less than 200 in 2003 to 7,583 in 2007, one of the highest rates in the United States. On average, 20 Cleveland homeowners faced foreclosure every day last year.

The defaults have depressed property values, cut local tax revenue and left many streets lined with vacant buildings. Most have been stripped of windows, doors, siding and even copper wiring and pipes. Some vacant homes carry signs saying, "No Copper. All PVC Piping," in an attempt to stave off looters.

"I don't think you can go down a street in the city of Cleveland without seeing at least one vacant house," says Mark Seifert, who runs a non-profit group called East Side Organizing Project (ESOP). Across the country, an estimated two million homes went into foreclosure last year, about double the 2006 level.

Over the next two years, 1.8 million more subprime mortgages, those aimed at riskier borrowers, are expected to reset at higher interest rates, prompting many experts to say the worst is yet to come. It is expected that as many 1.2 million of the loans will go into foreclosure and even those who don't default will barely get by after making their payments.

"It's like you are on a train heading for a bridge, but the bridge is out and you have no way of stopping the train," says Colin Kilgour, of Conner Clark & Lunn, a Toronto-based investment firm. "You can see it coming."

Mortgage woes and falling house prices have prompted consumers to cut their spending to a five-year low. Banks and other financial institutions, which pumped out more than $2.5-trillion worth of subprime loans between 2000 and 2007, have taken massive losses. This week, two of the biggest, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, reported a combined $20-billion loss for the fourth quarter. In total, banks in the U.S. and Canada have piled up more than $100-billion in housing-market losses.

Throw in high energy costs, weak employment and lower stock prices and it's no wonder that many economists have said the U.S. could fall into recession this year. And that means a slowdown for Canada as well.

Mr. Gregory of BMO points out that consumer spending accounts for 70 per cent of economic activity in the U.S., the main market for Canadian exports. When homeowners are paying off high debts, they have little left over. "No matter how you slice this, there is not a lot of confidence in spending."

So how did it get this bad? How could a bunch of loans in a place like Cleveland end up slowing down the entire North American economy?

Subprime loans don't exist in Canada, but they have been around in the U.S. for decades. They were initially intended to help wealthy people buy second properties, but as the housing market soared, they morphed into a vehicle for riskier borrowers to obtain a mortgage.

Typically, such loans carry a higher interest rate. But to entice borrowers, lenders usually start with a lower "teaser" rate that rises sharply after two years. Many subprime loans in Cleveland started out at 8 per cent and increased to 11 per cent. Borrowers were often told not to worry because they could always refinance later. After all, they were told, their house would be worth more by then.

To fund borrowers, mortgage companies sold their subprime loans to big banks. The banks then packaged them up as securities and sold them to investors on stock markets around the world. Investors snapped them up, convinced that the securities were backed by the booming U.S. housing market. As money poured in, banks bought more loans. From 2000 to 2006, the number of new subprime loans jumped from 911,369 to 3.2 million, according to a study by the Center for Responsible Lending.

To feed bank demand, mortgage companies offered higher commissions to brokers who steered clients into subprime loans, which prompted some to make loans with few if any background checks. Some loans required borrowers to show little more than "pride of ownership."

Mortgage brokers and lenders became aggressive salesmen, even going door to door in some neighbourhoods. In Cleveland, brokers would show up at houses with lists of purported building-code violations and coax the owners into taking out loans to fix the problems. One woman in a poor Cleveland neighbourhood ended up with a $70,000 loan after being convinced that her garage needed repair. Some brokers worked with corrupt building inspectors . . . when the inspector told a homeowner to fix a structural problem, the broker would follow, offering a loan. Later, the two would split the fee.

Countrywide Financial Corp. talked Sheila Massey and her husband into a subprime loan to buy their suburban dream house, even though their credit was good enough to qualify for a regular loan. Their debts became so onerous that they fell behind on payments and the house was put into foreclosure last week. Their credit rating has been cut in half.

"It all just fell on top of us," says Ms. Massey, 39, who runs an in-home daycare while her husband works at a country club. They have two children and look after three relatives. "If we can keep the home, we would love to, but we just want to get out of the hole."

Seemingly high-risk borrowers could even buy more than one home. At one point, Rashaunda Smith, 38, had four homes around Cleveland. She rented out three. Things got tricky last year when she was laid off and couldn't afford the upkeep on one house.

"When one goes down, it becomes harder to maintain the others," she says. Soon, all four were in foreclosure.

Last summer, she bought another house for $180,000 with two subprime loans from Countrywide. The interest rate on both loans is scheduled to go up next month and Ms. Smith said she won't be able to afford the new $1,600 monthly payment. She recently got a job driving a school bus, but she is single and has five children.

The subprime market peaked in 2006, but it was only last summer that the housing market began to crack. As prices sagged, investors and banks got worried about what was really behind those mortgage-backed securities. Soon, markets around the world went into a tailspin. Many investigations have followed. Several major mortgage lenders have gone out of business, leaving borrowers scrambling for answers. Banks, insurance firms and pension funds in the U.S. and Canada have taken massive write-offs on their loan portfolios.

ESOP's Mark Seifert saw all this coming years ago. He is a lawyer by training and he cut his teeth in community activism by working with homeless people and campaigning for safe streets.

In 1999, Mr. Seifert noticed that some of his key members had stopped showing up for ESOP meetings. When he went around to their houses, he found them boarded up.

He started looking into what had happened and discovered that most of them had fallen victim to subprime loans.

He started challenging lenders publicly, showing up at executives' homes with protesters carrying flyers decrying loansharking. They would dump bags of tiny plastic sharks at the door.

"For six years, nobody would listen to us," he says. "And then, all of a sudden, all hell broke loose. The reason that happened was because now white people were being impacted. It is a race issue, there's no question about it."

Like other activists, he alleged that predatory lenders targeted inner-city, African-American neighbourhoods, where they fudged property values and signed up thousands of borrowers without explaining the details of the loans. A study by the Housing Research & Advocacy Center, a non-profit group based in Cleveland, found that in 2005 nearly 60 per cent of all mortgages taken out by African Americans in the city were "high-cost loans" — compared with about 34 per cent of those taken out by whites.

"A lot of people of lower income are not financially literate," says James Jones, who runs seminars at ESOP for people facing foreclosure. "We have to spread the blame around. Some of the folks agree into a situation not really knowing what the result of that loan contract was going to be."

Since the foreclosure crisis hit the news last year, ESOP's staff has jumped from two to six full-time positions, thanks to a huge increase in government funding to tackle the issue. Last year, the group helped borrowers renegotiate 1,500 loans, three times more than in 2006. Demand for the seminars has been so strong, they have gone to four sessions a week from just one a year ago.

And yet those efforts are only scratching the surface. "We haven't even begun to see the end of this," Mr. Seifert says.

One of the worst-affected neighbourhoods is just a few blocks from the ESOP office. It's called Slavic Village, reflecting its heritage as a place where immigrants from Eastern Europe came in the 1800s to work in steel mills and manufacturing plants. It has always been a blue-collar area — not long ago, it was one of the few parts of Cleveland that was actually gaining population.

The neighbourhood's 30,000 residents always prided themselves on tidy lawns, American flags over the doorsteps and a low crime rate. But now vacant houses line many streets. Last fall, this zip code had the highest number of foreclosures in the U.S., according to data from RealtyTrac Inc. It remains in the top five.

On one street, eight out of 13 houses have been boarded up. On another, three houses stand crumbling side by side, the roof over one veranda has collapsed and nearly all of the doors and windows have been stripped off.

Some of the homes have been vacant for years. In one, garbage has been strewn ankle-deep. A calendar on the wall dates from 2003 and there are even a few cups in the kitchen cupboard. But all the piping, sinks and wiring have been removed and half of the aluminum siding has been stripped. Tires have been dumped in the backyard and the walls inside and out are full of holes.

"We are seeing two foreclosures a day in this area," says Anthony Brancatelli, the local city councillor.

"It's devastating," says Barbara Anderson, 60, who has lived in Slavic Village for 25 years and has watched as more than half of her neighbours have been forced out of their homes. When empty houses on her street became a haven for drug dealers, she pushed the city to erect a fence and install security cameras.

But the city cannot keep up with the foreclosures. Last year, Cleveland spent $7-million demolishing abandoned homes, compared with about $1-million a couple of years ago. By some estimates, the city would have to spend at least $70-million to tear down all the vacant buildings.

Rising foreclosures and falling property values have cut into the city's finances as well. Less money is being raised through property taxes and new developments in some areas are feasible only if the home buyers are promised tax holidays.

Last week, the city sued 21 financial institutions, including major banks in the U.S. and abroad, alleging that their actions cost Cleveland hundreds of millions of dollars. "The epidemic of foreclosures has devalued not only the homes directly affected but surrounding properties as well, deeply depleting Cleveland's tax base," alleged the lawsuit, which was filed under the city's "public nuisance" law.

For Tamarra Funches, the fight to keep her home in a Cleveland suburb is just beginning. The 36-year-old single mother recently received notice that the house is in foreclosure and she has come to ESOP for help. The house has been appraised at $160,000 and she owes $128,000 to Litton Loan Services. But the monthly payments keep rising because of higher interest costs and other fees.

"I could make it, but not when they keep adding on," says Ms. Funches, who earns $10 an hour as a nursing assistant. An 18-year-old son, a baby grandson and a seven-year-old niece live with her.

Some of her friends are in the same position, but are too ashamed to speak out. "Frankly I'm beyond being embarrassed," she says sternly. "I've got to try to keep my house for my niece and my grandson."

Sitting next to her, Fannie Ford vows to fight foreclosure as well. She is a nurse with two sons who had to stop working last summer because of a foot injury. That put her behind on her mortgage payments, and with her interest rate set to rise soon, she is stuck. She acknowledged that she didn't consider the loan carefully when she bought her house a year ago.

"I was thinking, 'I'm doing the right thing. I'm getting a home.' That's what everybody wanted to do," she says. "I'm really trying my best to keep it. I'll go down fighting."

Paul Waldie is a reporter with The Globe and Mail's Report on Business.
 
What I find funny in such articles is the premise of uncertainty. There is no uncertainty that Canada will follow the American lead. The only question is when and to what degree? You can look historically to get an estimate at the lag time. My personal opinion (which is probably worth little and yet no less likely to be wrong than most expert opinion) is that the impact here will be relatively mild relative to the US and countries such as England and Spain.
 
The American dream....Spend what you don't have and pay for it later.

I'm really curious to see how much Canada will be affected.
 
It already is.

If the U.S. economy goes into recession, we'll know about it.
 
We will feel their recession yes but we won't have anything like THAT up here.

That's the difference between the US and us. We have regulations to prevent this stuff from happening. You guys know, the sad thing is, 5 to 7 years from now when this is all over, alot of people are gonna end up with a lof of money out of this. Disaster capitalism. People with money will take advantage of the depressed prices and low interest rates and start snatching up properties between now and recovery a few years from now. Eventually prices will rise back up to what they were before the 2007 summer and the net effect is millions of suckers lost their homes to the rich. What's worse, is everytime these suckers turn on the TV they get right wing politicans and media personalities subtly and indirectly telling them that this is good for America, it's the American way; we can't have "liberal bleeding hearts" regulations here. Same thing with the stock market: market crashes are actually good as market corrections are necessary. What they don't tell you is that it's only good for people who had forseen this and had their investments moved to gold or whatever before everyone else reads about it on CNN. I know the Feds do their best to smooth out the business cycle, but it's just not enough.

The rich making money off the backs of everyone else; the American way.

Sorry for the rant.
 
We will feel their recession yes but we won't have anything like THAT up here.

That's the difference between the US and us. We have regulations to prevent this stuff from happening. You guys know, the sad thing is, 5 to 7 years from now when this is all over, alot of people are gonna end up with a lof of money out of this. Disaster capitalism. People with money will take advantage of the depressed prices and low interest rates and start snatching up properties between now and recovery a few years from now. Eventually prices will rise back up to what they were before the 2007 summer and the net effect is millions of suckers lost their homes to the rich. What's worse, is everytime these suckers turn on the TV they get right wing politicans and media personalities subtly and indirectly telling them that this is good for America, it's the American way; we can't have "liberal bleeding hearts" regulations here. Same thing with the stock market: market crashes are actually good as market corrections are necessary. What they don't tell you is that it's only good for people who had forseen this and had their investments moved to gold or whatever before everyone else reads about it on CNN. I know the Feds do their best to smooth out the business cycle, but it's just not enough.

The rich making money off the backs of everyone else; the American way.

Sorry for the rant.

One does not have to be "rich" (whatever that means) to profit from this. You just have to ignore the noise, do your research, have a plan, and don't be a pig. Those "suckers" as you put it most likely didn't do their research, listened to everyone around them and media, probably made some profits initially but stuck around too long cuz they wanted more and now have to pay the price. It's a joke to me how the politicians are doing this "bail out" cuz ppl and lenders saying "they didn't know" and were caught off guard. Well,....if you signed it or you provided the loan, you should have known. Otherwise it's best if you just keep it as a spectator sport.
 
The title of that article is very misleading, cause it hardly mentions anything about the situation up in Canada. It does however say one interesting thing: "Subprime loans don't exist in Canada,", and I believe that's why for the most part we'll be unaffected. We'll probably see some price corrections, but the Toronto real estate market should remain pretty healthy. Judging from the moves the US Fed made, a rate decrease of 0.75%, Bank of Canada will be forced to do the same in order not widen the gap between the Canadian and US dollar. With interest rates now being lower in Canada, it will at least help out some with their mortgages and make home ownership more affordable (that is as long as they don't lose their jobs).
 
One does not have to be "rich" (whatever that means) to profit from this. You just have to ignore the noise, do your research, have a plan, and don't be a pig. Those "suckers" as you put it most likely didn't do their research, listened to everyone around them and media, probably made some profits initially but stuck around too long cuz they wanted more and now have to pay the price. It's a joke to me how the politicians are doing this "bail out" cuz ppl and lenders saying "they didn't know" and were caught off guard. Well,....if you signed it or you provided the loan, you should have known. Otherwise it's best if you just keep it as a spectator sport.

Yeah you have a few good points. However, I'm not sure how many of these suckers bought their units for investments and how many bought them for homes. I have no sympathy for the lenders who are defaulting a third of their business and are going bankcrupt (or having their stocks plunge) because of this. The government pretty much has to do whatever they can to bail them out because if they don't, we are all going straight to hell. They fcuked it up, now they have to fix it. Man made disaster, stupid yanks!
 
Yeah you have a few good points. However, I'm not sure how many of these suckers bought their units for investments and how many bought them for homes. I have no sympathy for the lenders who are defaulting a third of their business and are going bankcrupt (or having their stocks plunge) because of this. The government pretty much has to do whatever they can to bail them out because if they don't, we are all going straight to hell. They fcuked it up, now they have to fix it. Man made disaster, stupid yanks!

The problem with "fixing it" is that ppl never learn and most have an attention span of a ADHD kid out of Ritalin and forget what happened yesterday let alone a decade ago. Drop interest rates low enough and provide enough liquidity and start another bubble elsewhere. Probably not in real estate again,....but trust me, greedy (and often stupid) money will find another market to pump and dump.
 
hang on a second.

One does not have to be "rich" (whatever that means) to profit from this. You just have to ignore the noise, do your research, have a plan, and don't be a pig. Those "suckers" as you put it most likely didn't do their research, listened to everyone around them and media, probably made some profits initially but stuck around too long cuz they wanted more and now have to pay the price. It's a joke to me how the politicians are doing this "bail out" cuz ppl and lenders saying "they didn't know" and were caught off guard. Well,....if you signed it or you provided the loan, you should have known. Otherwise it's best if you just keep it as a spectator sport.

But wait, didn't you just post this re: 801 King W?

I just bought into above building at a price I thought was below market value. Now figuring out why with the slaughter house nearby (lesson...buyer beware). Anyone know of any other underlying reason why this building seems to sell at a "discount" to it's peers in the area ?? Never lived in area so how big of an issue is this slaughter house deal and how much stigmatization does it put on the building in terms of rental/resale value. Thank you.

I don't mean to be a jackass, but there's some truth to the original post re: the rich will profit. And there's some idealism in your post re: research will help you profit.

I lived near Queen & Niagara for 10yrs, and I can assure that the stink is very noticeable. It happens in the summer and when the wind is blowing north. Every spring & fall you'll see a dozen houses in your neighborhood go up for sale as people try to move to "fresher pastures".
 
The fallout from the US credit crisis will be felt in Canada through tighter lending standards, fewer sources of mortgage financing, and finally higher credit spreads. Prime borrowers will probably feel a neutral affect due to falling bond rates but overall the impact will act to suppress values for the near future.

Now this I agree with, condocrash2008 :)
 
But wait, didn't you just post this re: 801 King W?



I don't mean to be a jackass, but there's some truth to the original post re: the rich will profit. And there's some idealism in your post re: research will help you profit.

I lived near Queen & Niagara for 10yrs, and I can assure that the stink is very noticeable. It happens in the summer and when the wind is blowing north. Every spring & fall you'll see a dozen houses in your neighborhood go up for sale as people try to move to "fresher pastures".

Agreed. Did my research and got out of deal. Didn't know how to price in the "slaughter house" and smell factor so anything I can't price in well, I rather not go there. I think alot of ppl forget that when buying, if you don't understand it, best if you don't go there.
 
We will feel their recession yes but we won't have anything like THAT up here.

That's the difference between the US and us. We have regulations to prevent this stuff from happening. You guys know, the sad thing is, 5 to 7 years from now when this is all over, alot of people are gonna end up with a lof of money out of this. Disaster capitalism. People with money will take advantage of the depressed prices and low interest rates and start snatching up properties between now and recovery a few years from now. Eventually prices will rise back up to what they were before the 2007 summer and the net effect is millions of suckers lost their homes to the rich. What's worse, is everytime these suckers turn on the TV they get right wing politicans and media personalities subtly and indirectly telling them that this is good for America, it's the American way; we can't have "liberal bleeding hearts" regulations here. Same thing with the stock market: market crashes are actually good as market corrections are necessary. What they don't tell you is that it's only good for people who had forseen this and had their investments moved to gold or whatever before everyone else reads about it on CNN. I know the Feds do their best to smooth out the business cycle, but it's just not enough.

The rich making money off the backs of everyone else; the American way.

Perfect! Agree 100%. Neil McDonald on CBC recently did a great report about the mechanics of the US housing collapse. Cant find it on video, but here's the text if anyone feels like doing some reading...

NEIL MACDONALD:
Lessons on debt from George W. Bush
January 23, 2008
An electronic display shows news of an anticipated drop in stocks prices in Times Square in New York on Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2008. (Peter Morgan/Associated Press) As markets lurched and crashed this week and ordinary people around the world watched big chunks of their wealth slide into the abyss and their economies veer toward recession, President George W. Bush summoned reporters to the Roosevelt room at the White House to announce a new executive order.

Flanked by members of his cabinet, the president explained that he had come to the conclusion many Americans do not understand their personal finances: "How credit cards work, and how credit scores affect you, how you can benefit from a savings account or a bank account."

So, said Bush, he had just established a blue-ribbon panel to advise him on how to further financial literacy.

It was a moment of Forrest Gump clarity in a day of deafening accusations and frightening news.

Campaigning presidential candidates were demanding emergency relief for the new needy. Experts were shouting at one another on cable networks, debating whether recession has arrived. The U.S. Federal Reserve, desperate to thwart a disaster, had just cut the key interest rate three-quarters of a percentage point — the biggest one-time cut in a quarter century. The Bank of America had become the latest financial institution to announce billions in losses, mostly due to American homeowners defaulting on mortgages in the ongoing lending crisis.

Meanwhile, in the Roosevelt room, elaborating on his new plan to educate Americans, President Bush mused: "I just wonder how many people, when they bought a subprime mortgage, knew what they were getting into."


Days of wonder

It is hard to know if Bush was serious. But the answer, anyway, is self-evident: If the millions of Americans who can't make their ballooning mortgage payments today knew that they would be hopelessly indebted and facing foreclosure after just a few years of these new arrangements, most of them, presumably, wouldn't have signed. That too many Americans are spend-happy and unable to see past the next minimum payment on their multiple credit cards is pretty obvious, too.

According to the Federal Reserve, the country's central bank, American consumers collectively owe $2.5 trillion, not including mortgages. That is about $22,500 per household in unsecured debt, roughly $8,300 of which is a credit card balance. Nearly half the people in this country spend more than they earn.

But then, it isn't as if their president or, for that matter, the other branches of government in this country has set a much higher example.

Granted, this is a country that believes more than most in keeping the dead hand of government out of the marketplace, which is one of the reasons it has attracted so much of the world's investment wealth in the first place.

But even most fiscal conservatives believe government has a regulatory role, a duty, in fact, to protect citizens and investors from market predators. And as the American housing market became gradually unmoored from reality over the past several years, precious little regulation was in evidence.


Not a penny down

Just a couple of years ago, in fact, Americans were routinely buying houses without a penny down, sometimes actually borrowing more than the purchase price and pocketing the extra cash at closing.

If the borrower was willing to pay a few more interest points, shady mortgage brokers would see to it that no proof of income or wealth was necessary. Or they would conceal huge fees and steep rate increases down the road a bit from anxious borrowers, rushing them through what amounted to a con job.

Appraisers obligingly overestimated the value of a property being purchased, the better to conceal the shakiness of the deal.

Banks and mortgage companies, collecting a nice fee, looked the other way, too, and then sold the debt to Wall Street, which would bundle it and sell it to suckers on the international securities market, many of whom had been fooled by the triple-A rating bestowed by ratings agencies on the whole mess.

What's more, it was not as though this was all done in secret. The whole time, consumer advocates and local government officials and economists were banging on desks and uttering dire warnings.

Ira Rheingold of the National Association of Consumer Advocates called the whole process "insane." Jim Rokakis, the county treasurer in Cleveland, referred to it as "fraud on an industrial scale."

They may as well have been yelling into a toilet.


A game of risk

Under the stewardship of a president who believed unstintingly in the ability of the market to discipline itself, federal regulators did virtually nothing.

State governments were no better. When, back in 2002, the cities of Cleveland, Toledo and Dayton, Ohio, passed laws cracking down on predatory lending, the free-market warriors in the state legislature immediately reversed them.

Risk is the grease of the American engine, argued the politicians. It is not for the state to protect people from their investment decisions. Caveat emptor.

And now, as a staggering 1.5 million homeowners face the prospect of foreclosure, and the bilge from all that unrestrained greed slops over onto innocent investors here and abroad, sweat is running down the backs of the country's ruling class.

"Explain to us," John Spratt, a Democratic congressman, demanded last week of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, "how it is that a problem so pervasive and so serious was able to crop up, or arrive under the radar without being detected sooner by the regulators?"

Bernanke stared at the budget committee chairman for a moment, and chose diplomacy. "There was a combination of factors," he replied.


The education of a president

Bernanke, his hands tied by circumstances, has really only one weapon left in his arsenal — to cut interest rates, which in effect means to print more money and make it easier for banks to lend.

He has made it clear that he will cut rates again, if necessary, to keep business solvent. Whether it will work is not clear.

Politicians, meanwhile, know an election year nightmare when they see one. Bush is promising fast action (something beyond his new education program) in the form of a stimulation package in excess of $141 billion. Congress is racing to cooperate.

But what exactly is this fix proposed by a president who says too many of his co-citizens don't understand the impact of their own financial indebtedness? Much more government borrowing.

This from an administration that has financed five years of war in Iraq by borrowing from foreign investors while cutting taxes at home. The U.S. government, thanks to Bush and six years of a compliant Republican Congress, is now into the Chinese banks the way the Americans are into the credit card companies.


Spending money

In order to pacify fiscal conservatives, Bush is characterizing the proposed measure as "an economic growth package," consisting of, as he puts it, "giving American consumers back some of their own money."

Basically, though, these are cash handouts — perhaps as much as $800 to individual taxpayers, $1,600 to families, distributed in the desperate hope that consumers will follow their past pattern and immediately spend the money on something, anything, rather than put it against some of that colossal household debt.

Because Bush will not tolerate increasing taxes on the well-off, and isn't proposing spending cuts, there is only one place he can get the money, which is the same well he has gone to so many times before: "The president wants to borrow money from the international community," says James Thurber, a professor of government at American University in Washington, DC. "He doesn't state it that way, but he'll have to do it if he doesn't raise taxes or cut popular spending programs."

Bush's administration, says Thurber, "thinks it can go to heaven without dying, meaning that they can cut taxes and borrow and there will be no consequences."

As for the financial Wild West of the past few years, Thurber says: "It's a strong argument that we need government, and we need regulation, and that unrestricted laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work."

Back in the Roosevelt Room this week, Bush made no such concessions. He just talked, almost wistfully, of how he wants "America to be as hopeful a place as it can be. We want people owning assets. We want people investing. We want people owning homes.

"But oftentimes," he went on, "to be able to do so requires literacy when it comes to financial matters."

And so, by executive order, the education begins, if a tad late.
 

Back
Top