OUR VIEW: Forced to buy a house (vote in poll)

We’ve all heard that President Barack Obama is smarter than the average mortal, so we should trust. Yet his solutions to problems seem too good to be true. If they work, then we’ve all been needlessly over-complicating some of society’s most difficult dilemmas.

Obama inherited a government in debt and a country in severe recession from big-spending hawkish Republicans with little grasp of sound economic principles. No problem. Just fix it by trying to outspend them. Will it work? If so, there is no limit to what the president and Congress should spend on compassion and war.

Want to solve the problems of the uninsured? No problem. Sign into law a bill that orders people to buy insurance. It could work.

Want insurance companies to cover pre-existing health conditions? Just order it, with a law. Imagine a law that would order auto insurers to cover pre-existing collision damage. With that, irresponsible drivers could forego the burden of premiums until sometime after they crash.

There appears no aspect of American life that President Barack Obama and Congress don’t want to control — no burden they will not ease — by simply imposing laws.

If the buy-health-insurance mandate works, think how easy it should be to end homelessness. Obama and the progressive Congress could simply pass a law that requires each couple or single adult to buy a house. Those who do not buy could be discovered and fined by the same minions of IRS agents hired to enforce our new just-buy-insurance law.

And what of those who a buy a house and can’t afford it? Maybe the value of the house declines, and they’re upside down in a mortgage. Maybe they buy a house and then lose a job. No worries, Obama has that covered already.

Friday, Obama announced new proposals to address the existing foreclosure crisis — the one caused by various government inducements for people to buy houses they couldn’t afford. One idea involves having the federal government order lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for borrowers who have lost their jobs.

It’s brilliant. Back in the old days of free market reality, when many succeeded and many failed, responsible Americans assessed their job security before taking out big loans. A bad decision would threaten their personal stability and credit. Responsible people who felt uncertain about their future employment prospects chose to rent or to buy homes or mobile homes they could more easily afford if things went wrong. They chose to mitigate risk. Today, there’s no need for concern about future ability to succeed and pay. Today, people in financial trouble have the protection of a president who will order banks to stop demanding payments.

(Please vote in poll to the right, in red type. Must vote to see results. Thanks!)

And what of those people who paid too much for homes, owing more than they’re worth? No worries, Obama will fix it. He plans to offer money to lenders who agree to cut loan balances for borrowers who are upside-down in their homes. Obama will pay for this with $50 billion from the previous foreclosure relief program that hasn’t worked.

This is no longer a country of winners and losers, in which one had to produce extraordinary wealth — by enhancing the human condition — in order to live in a big fancy home. This is no longer a country that generates wealth as a result of people craving the comforts of success and dodging the torturous consequences of failure. This is no longer a country in which people have incentive to create and produce in order to gain access to the greatest health care in the world. More and more, government ensures that people who fail have at least as much security and comfort as those who succeed. In a country that treats failure like success, it’s hard to imagine why a majority would make difficult, responsible, intelligent decisions. It’s hard to imagine why a majority would bother to innovate and produce and avoid bad loans.

If winners lose incentive to produce, because they live like everyone else, the country won’t have enough wealth to pay off its mounting debts, much less to pay for health care. That’s why Moody’s Investor Services this month began questioning our country’s long-standing, gold-plated credit rating. A country that consumes more than it produces, as a result of rewarding poor judgement and minimal performance, has a bleak financial future. 

— Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, for the editorial board

Friend editorial author Wayne Laugesen on Facebook