Hypocrisy That's Hard to Bear
Well, isn't this rich: Max Baucus of Montana and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Finance Committee are suddenly in a lather that taxpayer funds might be implicated in the Federal Reserve's rescue of Bear Stearns.
Would that be the same Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley who have made careers out of protecting and enhancing the lavish system of import restrictions, price supports and other subsidies that have transformed American farming and ranching into a vast socialist enterprise? You betcha.
Whatever you want to say about the sharpies on Wall Street, they are pikers compared to Max's and Chuck's friends down on the farm when it comes to picking the pockets of taxpayers and consumers, or concocting a system in which the farmers get all the gains while the government assumes most of the risk.
In case you hadn't noticed, this last year has been a banner one for farmers, thanks to bountiful harvests and record commodity prices. The average farm household income in 2006 was $77,654, or about 17 percent higher than the average for nonfarm households. And next year, that's expected to rise to $90,000.
But for Max and Chuck, that's no reason to cut back on farm socialism. No siree. Farmers are expected to pull in $13 billion in federal subsidies this year. And there will be plenty more once Congress gets around to passing a new five-year farm bill later this spring.
In fact, the big concern out in farm country these days is that rapidly rising commodity prices are putting the financial squeeze on ethanol plants and grain elevators. It's probably only a matter of time before Max and Chuck weigh in with "emergency" legislation providing government loans to these cash-strapped operations, just like the Fed is doing with the investment banks. Only unlike the Bear Stearns shareholders, you can be sure that the farmers who own these businesses won't lose a dime.
Seriously, folks, this isn't the time for members of Congress to come sauntering back from another of their vacations and begin second-guessing the battlefield judgments of Fed and Treasury officials who have been working day and night to prevent a meltdown in global financial markets.
Despite the bleating from Capitol Hill, there really isn't much "taxpayer money" at risk in the Bear Stearns deal, in the way most of us understand that term. While the Fed is certainly a government entity, it has about $800 billion in assets on its balance sheet -- Treasury bonds and gold, mostly -- along with the power to print as many dollars as it needs or deems appropriate. Its recent interventions into the workings of financial markets have certainly been extraordinary, and carry serious, long-term consequences for inflation and moral hazard. But "cost to taxpayers" ought to be well down on anyone's list of worries.
If Max, Chuck and their buddies in Congress want to be helpful, they might better turn their attention to the housing crisis, which is real and immediate and has serious implications for the financial system and the economy.
Contrary to what you might be hearing, the goal here shouldn't be to prevent housing prices from falling. In fact, the aim ought to be to get them to fall as quickly as possible to a level consistent with the incomes of the people who live in them, or could potentially buy them. For it is only at that point that sellers, buyers and lenders will regain the confidence necessary to start selling, buying and lending again.
Nor should you worry much about those reports that, if home prices fall another 10 or 15 percent, there will be tens of millions of Americans with property worth less than the mortgages they are supposes to secure. Upside-down mortgages are only a problem if homeowners don't have the income to keep up with their payments, or are forced to sell their property. Once a normal market resumes, prices will rise even as outstanding balances will decline, and most of these situations will resolve themselves naturally.
But that still will leave millions of Americans who can't keep up with their payments or won't be able to when their variable mortgage rates reset. Some of these are speculators and fraudsters who deserve to lose their property, although this group is not as big as John McCain seems to think it is. The rest are just ordinary folks who didn't understand, or took on too much risk, and there are lots of good public policy reasons why the government should try to keep them in their homes.