After rushing through the passage of a nearly $800 billion stimulus aid package, President Barack Obama immediately announced measures intended to help stabilize one of the strident forces behind the current economic crisis, the weakening housing market. For those hoping for stability, however, there is again too little meat in the Obama plan to produce the desired effect and far too much pandering to a core Democratic constituency.
President Obama's housing plan has two primary components, neither of which--despite Administration attempts to create fact from fiction--will do much of anything for the average homeowner.
The first component of the Obama housing policy is the implementation of a $75 billion spending plan aimed at forestalling home foreclosures for nearly five million Americans currently facing imminent home foreclosure. How that money will be spent to forestall foreclosures remains to be seen, but, even allowing that there is a bona fide plan in place for carrying out the salvage operation, there is reason to question the merit of the policy.
The Obama Administration contends that its $75 billion housing plan is a win-win for all homeowners. Those who receive assistance and stave off foreclosure clearly win, the Administration contends, while those who do not receive assistance but still own their home will, on average, realize a $6,000 positive differential in the value of their home by virtue of the higher overall property values created by reducing the number of foreclosed homes.
This is where any clear-thinking individual's mind ought already to have exploded.
By ensuring that the vast majority of those facing home foreclosure will not face that peril, the Obama Administration is caving to the very same politics that created the housing and economic mess in the first place. Saving from foreclosure those who made poor investments in their homes does nothing to ensure against those same homeowners repeating the same mistakes in the near future and even encourages those homeowners to take actions without consideration of the financial consequences down the road.
Particularly troubling in this respect is the Administration's decision to funnel an additional $200 billion each to Freddie Mac and Fannie May to help prop up the Administration's housing stabilization program. That brings the total cost of the policy to $475 billion for roughly five million homes--approximately $95,000 per home. That figure might seem low until one considers that average home price of the homes that will receive protection under the Obama plan is approximately $75,000-80,000. The numbers simply do not add up.
Adding insult to financial loss, Obama Administration HUD Secretary, Shaun Donovan, had the temerity to chide critics of the scant-reaching, over-paying housing policy. "What critics need to understand," Donovan pontificated, "is that the plan will, on average, create an additional $6,000 in home value for every homeowner in America."
Donovan's contention is pure fiction, of course, and absolutely irrelevant in any case as far as the policy's intended purpose of stabilizing the housing market is concerned. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Donovan is correct, adding value--or, more correctly, halting further erosion in home values--does nothing for homeowners, most of whom have little if any intention of attempting to sell in the current market.
More to the point, Donovan's claim is true, even accepting his figure, only if one considers homes across the United States in the aggregate. It is entirely meaningless to the property value of someone living in Iowa, for example, whether there are more home foreclosures in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, or anywhere else in the country. While fewer foreclosures in one location will have a direct effect on the home values of those living nearby, it will have almost zero effect on homeowners in areas not affected by foreclosures--the vast majority of neighborhoods across the United States. To argue in the aggregate, then, is both disingenuous and dishonest. And it smacks an awful lot of politics as usual.
Of course, that Donovan would push the Administration's policy in such a fashion is not necessary surprising. After all, Donovan's roots are in the affordable housing industry and he has long been a champion of federally subsidized housing. But that does not explain why, when a far better option is on the table--one that would provide 4% mortgages to all homeowners and homebuyers, with sensible lending restrictions requiring proof of ability to pay off the mortgage--the Obama Administration has opted for a housing policy that does little if anything to address one of the undergirding weaknesses in the economy while encouraging even worse consumer practices than those that helped create the current economic ills.
Perhaps, as we have already seen with the $800 billion stimulus plan, party remains thicker than good policy.