Yet Again, Beltway Pundits are Wrong and the Tea Party is Right
The Tea Party correctly identified problems in the mortgage market two years ago, even as the Washington establishment is still struggling to understand.
3:15 PM, Mar 6, 2011 • By MARK HEMINGWAY
Of course, as Stephen Spruiell noted at National Review, principled liberals such as Dayen weren't really vocal about their belief the program was a failure until late last summer when it became too obvious to ignore. So if HAMP isn't actually helping out the little guy, who benefited from the government funneling an additional $50 billion into the mortgage industry? Here's National Review's editorial from way back in February 2009 when the program was announced:
HAMP was always a GSE/bank bailout disguised a consumer protection program. Talk about insidious. The only reason the Obama administration got away with this fraud is because the Lords of Beltway Conventional Wisdom have been snookered into credulously believing the White House had good intentions at every turn. If Milbank's column is any indication, they're holding fast to this belief even as principaled liberal observers are in agreement with the right on this narrow issue.
Further, the problem is more complex than the big mortgage banks vs. the American people. You'll recall that Rick Santelli's famous CNBC rant that set the Tea Party in motion was about HAMP. Specifically, Santelli was angry over the idea that the government was going to just bail people out of their mortgages without making any effort to distinguish between those Americans that were genuinely victims of deceitful mortgage practices or those that were simply greedy and made bad investments.
"This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills? Raise their hand," Santelli said. And with that, a political movement was launched.
In fact, just about the only people that have from the beginning opposed the bank bailouts, weren't fooled by HAMP and correctly identified the problems of government distorting incentives in the mortgage markets were Tea Partiers.
Thankfully, some principled people on the left -- such as Dayen quoted above -- are coming around on HAMP and mortgage markets. They might still talk up Elizabeth Warren's Consumer FInancial Protection Bureau and other dubious government panaceas to a problem largely created by government in the first place. But that is at least an understandable point of disagreement.
Supporting HAMP is at this point is as inexplicable as it is indefensible. And Milbank's suggestion that Republicans aren't protecting consumers by wanting to kill HAMP is grossly unfair. He really ought to know better.
Recent Blog Posts