President Obama botched the first rule of political survival
in several ways, but particularly on an issue of importance to Nevada
residents.
He violated a rule that haunts many politicians because they make
promises ad nauseum. The rule? Under-promise and over-deliver, rather
than doing the opposite. The National Journal says Obama has changed
course on seven promises, stalled on 24, made progress on 140 and kept
just 18—which includes bringing a dog to the White House.
At least one of importance in Nevada, a state riddled by
foreclosures, involves Obama’s pledge more than a year ago to
impose a three-month moratorium on foreclosures. His election victory
brought no such moratorium as yet.
Don’t take this as a criticism on governing. As a free market
advocate, your scrivener often rants about prospective government
oversight and market meddling but really balks long and loudly
regarding post-contractual market interventions.
No fan of market meddling writes these words. Yet such meddling is
what Feds did big time in this economic crisis, and even earlier when
there was no crisis to use as an excuse. I know government intervention
after signals is inevitable, though spotty stewardship at best.
This columnist decries foot-in-door stuff like a public option in
health care policy hoopla (touted as reform), but at least folks will
know the new rules going in. Conservatives are forced to live
grudgingly with such tomfoolery after these liberal decisions of
dubious value.
A moratorium on foreclosures, however, is akin to the referee
choosing sides after the game started. It is outright coercion and
usurpation of private property contracts.
I have no respect for predatory lenders or even bankers who purveyed
ARMs (adjusted rate mortgages) with onerous terms that followed initial
teaser rates. But neither do I sympathize with dupes who jumped at such
deals. A fool who thinks any asset always increases in value may say
adios to his money, and periodically does.
To be sure, fallout from stupidity in the marketplace (befouled by
government-backed entities like Fannie Mae) backed others into corners.
Jobs were lost, stocks swooned, malls emptied out, businesses failed,
the economy stalled. It still sputters as de-leveraging continues apace
because staggering debt loads are unwinding.
But that doesn’t justify voiding private contracts, even for
the short term.
The president’s foreclosure moratorium promise of October 2008
went the way of many another dotty political pledge. The notion would
have proven little more than kick-the-can-down-the-road-to-hell BS
anyway.
But now the president must deal with false hopes he instilled in
some, and this example is a microcosm of his over-promise/under-perform
problem. Politicians who promise the moon but cut green cheese
don’t always suffer if markets right themselves. But markets
sometimes don’t do so for some time.
Already it appears Obama’s estimated 8 percent top rate for
unemployment, which instead zoomed to double digits, will haunt
congressional Democrats in 2010.
In addition, Republicans will remind voters in 2012 of the president
reneging on promises. That could include his foreclosure moratorium
pledge. This foreclosure mess was so painful for so many, reminders of
his unkept pledge are unnecessary.
Obama gets no conservative GOP votes in a 2012 re-election bid for
passing acquaintance with free market principles on foreclosures, but
left-leaning Democrats and Independents who liked the moratorium idea
won’t forget.
They’ll especially remember in residential hot-then-cold
states, which include(d) Nevada, Arizona, Florida and California. Obama
last year won three of those four; the fourth was the home state of his
2008 opponent.
For a conservative, it’s a win-win in
government/politics—right on the decision, wrong on the message
left.