The witnesses supporting the bipartisan approach represent the following groups: the Housing Policy Council, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the National Association of Realtors, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the Community Home Lender Association, the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions, and the U.S. Mortgage Insurers.
He refers to a bipartisan housing finance “reform” bill. With that list of rent-seekers in support, you know that one should pray that the bill never passes.
Even though I am not convinced it was all government fault on the 2008 crisis, I am still wondering why we don’t take the Fannie and Freddie assets and break them up into ~10 or so asset bundles and starting selling on the market. I think it is simplest and easiest way to get off the government books.
what truly unites them is the desire for some form of federal guarantees, ranging from explicit federal backing of securities to legal protections for long-term, low down-payment mortgages.
There are two clear, simple to understand things that make houses more affordable:
1) more houses built,
2) higher wages, both with a) more paying-jobs, and b) jobs paying more.
The above orgs want gov’t subsidized excess profit; and will likely get it, altho they shouldn’t.
The last sentence is “It is a simple formula: do the opposite of what caused the 2008 meltdown.” Of course, the meltdown was caused by the retraction of lending. The author has the conventional (weird) position that the drop of homeownership from 69% to sub-64% was some sort of inevitability that had nothing to do with the unprecedented collapse of lending to sub-760 FICO borrowers after 2008. And of course he thinks there were too many houses in 2006.
That’s the thing with this debate, the facts aren’t nearly as important as the premise. And if the premise is wrong, then boy oh boy do you go off the rails big time.