home  |  book  |  blogs  |   RSS  |  contact  |
  An American Manifesto
Thursday May 24, 2012 
by Christopher Chantrill Follow chrischantrill on Twitter

TOP NAV

Home

Blogs

Opeds

Articles

Bio

Contact

BOOK

Manifesto

Sample

Faith

Education

Mutual aid

Law

Books

BLOGS 12

May 2012

Apr 2012

Mar 2012

Feb 2012

Jan 2012

BLOGS 11

Dec 2011

Nov 2011

Oct 2011

Sep 2011

Aug 2011

Jul 2011

Jun 2011

May 2011

Apr 2011

Mar 2011

Feb 2011

Jan 2011

BLOGS 10

Dec 2010

Nov 2010

Oct 2010

Sep 2010

Aug 2010

Jul 2010

Jun 2010

May 2010

Apr 2010

Mar 2010

Feb 2010

Jan 2010

BLOGS 09

Dec 2009

Nov 2009

Oct 2009

Sep 2009

Aug 2009

Jul 2009

Jun 2009

May 2009

Apr 2009

Mar 2009

Feb 2009

Jan 2009

BLOGS 08

Dec 2008

Nov 2008

Oct 2008

Sep 2008

Aug 2008

Jul 2008

Jun 2008

May 2008

Apr 2008

Mar 2008

Feb 2008

Jan 2008

BLOGS 07

Dec 2007

Nov 2007

Oct 2007

Sep 2007

Aug 2007

Jul 2007

Jun 2007

May 2007

Apr 2007

Mar 2007

Feb 2007

Jan 2007

BLOGS 06

Dec 2006

Nov 2006

Oct 2006

Sep 2006

Aug 2006

Jul 2006

Jun 2006

May 2006

Apr 2006

Mar 2006

Feb 2006

Jan 2006

BLOGS 05

Dec 2005

Nov 2005

Oct 2005

Sep 2005

Aug 2005

Jul 2005

Jun 2005

May 2005

Apr 2005

Mar 2005

Feb 2005

Jan 2005

BLOGS 04

Dec 2004

Is This the Turn? Society and State

print view

Fannie/Freddie and the Stealth Welfare State

by Christopher Chantrill
September 30, 2008 at 11:16 am

|

BACK IN the good old days the US used to spend big money on secret defense projects. And no wonder, for in 1960 defense and the military industrial complex ate up 10 percent of GDP. It was easy to find money for the odd U-2 spy plane or the granddaddy of all “black” projects, the Mach 3 spy plane variously known as the A-12, YF-12, and SR-71 Blackbird.

The trouble with secret programs is that there is no public accountability. You can spend billions of dollars on some brilliant idea and have nothing to show for it. The Mach 3 spy plane worked, probably thanks to the brilliance of Kelly Johnson, head of the Lockheed “skunk works.” But it cost a fortune to develop and a fortune to operate.

Secret defense programs have their place, but surely it is wrong to create secret social programs. The meltdown of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac demonstrates why. Everybody thought Fannie and Freddie were boring old government-sponsored enterprises dealing in nice safe mortgages for middle-class Americans. Only they weren’t.

You can understand why President Clinton decided to crank up Fannie and Freddie to deliver sub-prime mortgages in the 1990s. It seemed like a great idea to amend the Community Reinvestment Act to bully the banks into lending more money into inner-city areas. And it was certainly a success in political terms. By the end of his administration, Bill Clinton was wildly popular in the African American community. Of course he would be, after sluicing billions of dollars in mortgage money to the house-hungry women of America’s red-lined neighborhoods.

But who really understood what was going on before the whole thing blew up and tossed the nation into a global credit crisis? A few people did, and a few people tried to warn us. A few politicians tried to reform Fannie and Freddie, but they were no match for the lobbyists and the Friends of Angelo.

It is hard enough trying to reform headline programs like public education or Social Security. At least everything is out in the open.

But with stealth programs burrowed into the Community Reinvestment Act our liberal friends are learning to emulate the methods of the cold war Pentagon. They have learned how to keep controversial programs under the radar, and they usually succeed. It’s only when a program blows up that people realize what is going on.

We are going to see more of these meltdowns in the future. Fannie/Freddie isn’t the only government program adapted to serve a hidden agenda.

But how did we get from open and accountable government to the new era of stealth social programs operating under the radar?

Back in the 1930s with the New Deal and in the 1960s with the Great Society liberals were proud to point to all the wonderful programs they were offering to the American people. They even set up programs to measure the inevitable success of their programs, as Charles Murray noted in Losing Ground. Everyone knew that with a few more billions we could end poverty forever.

Then things started to go wrong. Liberals knew by the early 1970s that their job-training programs weren’t working. The work-force participation of minority youths was going down, not up. What should they do? They could manfully own up to their failures or they could disguise them and keep them going under the radar.

When the much-vaunted public-housing projects cratered liberals replaced their public housing projects with less visible Section 8 rent subsidies. When Hillary Clinton’s universal health-care system went down to defeat Democrats expanded smaller-scale projects like S-CHIP. When the American people rejected the idea of a negative income tax in the 1970s liberals responded in the 1990s with the innocuously named Earned Income Tax Credit.

Then there’s the federal disability program. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) has gone from “2.2 percent of adults age 25 to 64 in 1985 to 4.1 percent in 2005.” Study authors David Autor and Mark Duggan expect disability rolls to increase eventually to “almost 7 percent of the non-elderly adult population.”

Conservatives need to develop a political strategy to de-legitimize these stealth programs. Let’s leave aside the argument from compassion that excessive income support programs rip the social fabric asunder and create a non-working underclass. Let’s be practical.

Somehow, these meltdowns always seem to happen on the Republicans’ watch. Then the American people, egged on by the helpful mainstream media, blame the Republicans for the mess. And that ain’t fair.

Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com.  His Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.

print view

To comment on this article at American Thinker click here.

To email the author, click here.

 

 TAGS


What Liberals Think About Conservatives

[W]hen I asked a liberal longtime editor I know with a mainstream [publishing] house for a candid, shorthand version of the assumptions she and her colleagues make about conservatives, she didn't hesitate. “Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice fascists,” she offered, smiling but meaning it.
Harry Stein, I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican


US Life in 1842

Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism


Society and State

For [the left] there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
David Cameron, Conference Speech 2008


Socialism equals Animism

Imagining that all order is the result of design, socialists conclude that order must be improvable by better design of some superior mind.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit


Sacrifice

[Every] sacrifice is an act of impurity that pays for a prior act of greater impurity... without its participants having to suffer the full consequences incurred by its predecessor. The punishment is commuted in a process that strangely combines and finesses the deep contradiction between justice and mercy.
Frederick Turner, Beauty: The Value of Values


Religion, Property, and Family

But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family. Thus the outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family, (and also anti-religion), is not promising.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit


Racial Discrimination

[T]he way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Roberts, C.J., Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District


Postmodernism

A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ’merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.
Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy


Physics, Religion, and Psychology

Paul Dirac: “When I was talking with Lemaître about [the expanding universe] and feeling stimulated by the grandeur of the picture that he has given us, I told him that I thought cosmology was the branch of science that lies closest to religion. However [Georges] Lemaître [Catholic priest, physicist, and inventor of the Big Bang Theory] did not agree with me. After thinking it over he suggested psychology as lying closest to religion.”
John Farrell, “The Creation Myth”


Pentecostalism

Within Pentecostalism the injurious hierarchies of the wider world are abrogated and replaced by a single hierarchy of faith, grace, and the empowerments of the spirit... where groups gather on rafts to take them through the turbulence of the great journey from extensive rural networks to the mega-city and the nuclear family...
David Martin, On Secularization


Never Trust Experts

No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.
Lord Salisbury, “Letter to Lord Lytton”


Mutual Aid

In 1911... at least nine million of the 12 million covered by national insurance were already members of voluntary sick pay schemes. A similar proportion were also eligible for medical care.
Green, Reinventing Civil Society


mysql close

 

©2007 Christopher Chantrill