Our View - Saturday

Foreclosure chic

Government bailouts punish new buyers

Afew short years ago, those who lost homes to foreclosure had failed. They had failed to pay the banker. Some had been laid off. Some had become disabled, unable to work. Others mismanaged money, or took on mortgages with no solid plans for paying them off. For whatever reason, they had failed to pay on a loan. In American life, all suffer failure at times for a great variety of reasons. Most survive, pick up, move on and get stronger.

Today, however, a twist of perception has taken shape. People who lose their homes have not failed. Rather, they've become victims of external forces beyond their control. What has caused the plight of these victims? That depends on one's socioeconomic and political view. It could be: The "predatory lending industry;" George W. Bush; the Republicans; the Democrats; the economy; illegal immigrants; the war; etc.

In today's genuflect-to-the-victims-of-foreclosure climate, the only people not blameworthy are those who borrowed the money and didn't pay it back.

Because people losing their homes are victims, everyone has a plan to help. Congress is working on a bailout known as the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, with funding that would pay for government to buy foreclosed homes. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has promised to do all he can to help defaulting borrowers. He told the National Community Reinvestment Coalition in Washington on Friday that he's "strongly committed to fully employing our authority, expertise and resources to help alleviate their distress."

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., wants money in the 2009 Housing and Urban Development budget that would fund block grants to cities and counties for programs to buy the homes of delinquent borrowers. Some want local governments to simply buy homes in foreclosure, and then help the failed owners someday buy them back. Countless ideas involve government aiding lender and borrower alike.

It's not the role of the Federal Reserve to save homeowners who took loans, or banks that funded them. It's not appropriate for Congress to pay off private debts, or for cities and counties to enter the housing market with federal tax dough.

What about borrowers who defaulted before it was fashionable to fail? If we're to be fair, government should be just as concerned with the schlub who lost his house in 2005, when foreclosure wasn't cool.

And what about families who rent - the people who didn't take the easy-credit, adjustable-rate bait? If cities, counties, Congress and the Federal Reserve owe homes to the new foreclosure victims, they should help the renters who purposely avoided this fiasco. It would only be fair.

But nobody in government has new plans to help the person who has been waiting to buy a home - waiting for the right mortgage, in the right place, with a realistic plan to repay it. They won't help those people because they don't comprise a class of victims.

Sadly, non-victims will suffer as a result of the various bailouts planned for victims. That's because the foreclosure crisis creates unprecedented opportunity for young families just starting out and renters who've been patient. Each foreclosure raises the available housing stock and creates opportunity for someone else. Not, however, if government intervenes.

We're thankful one unlikely politician gets this: President George W. Bush. Speaking to a group of investors Friday, Bush said governments buying foreclosed homes would only remove a growing opportunity for first-time buyers. He should add that all other bailouts would have the same effect.

For several years - hoping housing values would continue to soar - lenders bet on marginal loans for borrowers with bad credit and questionable ability to pay. Today, once-inflated housing prices are correcting downward. The lenders and borrowers miscalculated, simple as that. None are victims. The borrowers and lenders are people who exercised bad judgment, made risky bets, or fell on hard times. They failed; most will recover.

If government stays out of it, the market will work magic. It will continue expanding a buyer's market, and when the time is right, responsible new buyers will pounce. After all, one man's repossessed castle is another's first-time home.


Unarmed church

New Life Church of Colorado Springs hosted a gathering of representatives from 118 Front Range religious institutions Thursday to share with them their experience of coming under attack. After a psychotic showed up with plans to shoot up the congregation in December, the church began working quickly to ramp up its security measures. Because it had armed people in the congregation the day of the attack, the killer didn't carry out his full plan. He killed two teenagers in the parking lot, so the church still needed improvements to its security measures. Ideally, any future mass murderers will be spotted in time to save all lives.

At the meeting, Pastor Brady Boyd recommended "every church to have armed security in place." It should be common sense. Anything less reflects gross negligence and irresponsibility on the part of the church administration. A church without measures to counter a mass assault is like a church without fire extinguishers and an egress plan.

Unfortunately, the message was lost on at least one church official who attended the event. We won't name the church or the official, because we don't believe it's responsible to shine attention on his institution's vulnerable position. He said, after hearing from Boyd, that he would draw the line at armed guards. He didn't think the church was "ready for that yet."

Public statements of that sort send a clear message to plotting suicidal mass killers just exactly where they can find sitting ducks. Armed guards are the only known way to stop these people before they kill. We hope the preacher, who publicly announced a vulnerable position, doesn't put a sign on the door saying "unarmed church."