Home › Blogs › Josh Kahn's blog ›

Boehner Fumbles Housing Message

Submitted by Josh Kahn on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 12:04
in

House GOP Leader John Boehner’s statement on the Housing Bill this week, which deserved the no vote he was urging, was utterly tone deaf.  Never, never write a sentence like:

“We must take responsible steps to ensure our financial and housing markets are sound, but the Democrats’ bill represents a multi-billion dollar bailout for scam artists and speculative lenders at the expense of American taxpayers.” 

Boehner later rephrased that same sentence at his press conference which predictably dominated the GOP's message on housing.  Republicans should always craft every message and statement assuming that any individual sentence will be picked out of context.  Period.

Voters who read a sentence like Boehner’s hear: "If you’re having trouble making your mortgage payments, Republicans think you’re scum." 

So how could Boehner and his staff have done this differently?  He should have emphasized the distinction between the thousands of people who were sold a bill of goods by shady mortgage brokers, and the shady mortgage brokers themselves.  For example, he could have said: “Our plan would help the people who have truly been victimized without bailing out the scam artists who earned billions by preying on honest folks’ dreams of homeownership.”

Incidentally, Heritage has some good principles that an effective homeowner relief bill should follow.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

You are joking; right?

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 07/25/2008 - 21:32.

As far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing wrong or incorrect with that statement. It represents exactly what this housing bill represents. I, for one, as a fiscal conservative Republican, only regret this message wasn't heard  in every household, on every street corner, at every voting booth.

Secondly, although I only read it a few times, I never saw the word "scum" written in the sentence. Perhaps you would be kind enough to show me where it is.

Lastly, I don't know what your political persuasion is, but most Republicans I know take full responsibility for their actions, especially when buying their own houses. These people knew, or should have known, what they were doing. You sound like a liberal, always looking to place the blame on someone else rather than where it actually belongs. Give me a break. 

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

Gaffe = A politician caught accidently speaking the truth

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 00:14.

I also read this sentence and find nothing untrue about it. That is exactly what the Democrat bill is doing.

"Democrats’ bill represents a multi-billion dollar bailout for scam artists and speculative lenders at the expense of American taxpayers.” 

This "gaffe" reminds me of my Ambrose Bierce-like definition of Gaffe = A politician caught accidently speaking the truth. You know, like Geraldine Ferraro's "gaffe" about Obama in March.

We must realize a key point in the bailout bill. If a home is foreclosed and the risky mortgage is passed from a private lender to a taxpayer-backed lender, there is not a whit of benefit to the borrower, all the benefit goes to the lender! These are the same lenders that (a) the Democrats have been trashing all year and (b) the same lenders that have given democrat Senators like Dodd and others sweetheart loan deals.

And let's not forget the side-benefits in billions for groups like ACORN and other leftwing special interests who are on the gravy train in this budget-busting bailout.

I think it is counter-productive to criticize a Republican leader for speaking the truth without providing a clear and winning alternative path to winning on the issue.

The good news is that the GOP actually has the cohones to buck the trend of giveaways and bailouts, to ask Congress to be fiscally repsonsible for a change.

would this statement be insulting, then?

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 09:34.

"The American people deserve a government that honors their values and spends their money judiciously, and a country that rewards people who work hard and play by the rules."

Clinton ’94 quote right?

Submitted by Josh Kahn on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 20:47.

Clinton ’94 quote right?  That’s basically the same sentiment phrased positively.  I don’t have a problem with responsibility as a message, but it’s much more effective phrased in a positive way like that than a negative way like Boehner’s statement.  Responsibility phrased negatively comes across as heartlessness, positivly it's fine.

The problem in this case is as much about tactical press relations as anything else.  Republicans have to deal with a liberal media and there are certain things we have to take into account as a result of that.  When a Republican says something, any one sentence can potentially be plucked out and used to paint the entire message.  A leader like Boehner has special responsibility on this count because he represents the whole caucus.

The sentence I’m picking on phrases an acceptable if delicate message in the worst possible way, and it made it much easier for the AP to write that article we both got so annoyed about.

So what are you saying...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 21:26.

Republicans should take up Clinton double-speak so we too can fool as many people as possible into believing we actually care about responsible government? 

Good grief! Please go away.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Yep

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 07/26/2008 - 21:03.

I think you greatly underestimate the resentment people have when they live in 1500-2200sf houses and drive economy cars---and then they see people living in McMansions and driving Lexuses demanding the same kind of federal bailouts as if they were victims of Katrina .

Remember, this is a suburban working class party. Most of our voters already owned their home in the early 2000's...and guess what, they don't think "fiscal responsibility" is just some Madison Avenue slogan  .

I would like to know why

Submitted by Repack Rider on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 22:09.

I would like to know why banking is socialized only when the banks lose money.  The executives rake it in until the company tanks, and then they keep the profits they made in good times, while WE bail out the banks after corruption and ineptitude put them in the red.

It's socialism of course, but only when the banks LOSE money.  When they make money, they get to keep it.

Shouldn't all those highly paid execs who caused this have to give back their salaries and stocks as part of the repayment to the treasury?

When I bought my house 15 years ago, I had to produce dozens of financial documents and tax returns, AND put down 20%.  There was no possiblity of the bank losing money on my loan.

I would like to know how the banks were permitted to abandon the standards that protected them from such failures.  This stuff used to be regulated, and it worked.  Then somehow it was no longer regulated, there were no longer any consequences for failure, and now we the taxpayers are left holding the bag.

Who let that happen, and why?  It's pretty hard to blame this deregulation mess on a Democrat majority, since it all started long before the 2006 election.  Did the banks buy some politicians?  Which ones?  (Other than Lieberman, that is.  He's been their tool forever.)

since you asked....

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 11:00.

This is the main reason. Note that folks like Senator Obama's allies, ACORN, use this as a lever to demand banks make more loans to less solvent borrowers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

I also note you bought your house right after the S&L debacle scared a lot of bankers straight. The lesson was lost due to the passage of time

Now. why do we bail out banks? Well, it is usually it because they have this (if they are a federally chartered bank) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit_insurance. The absence of deposit insurance led to this event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression as banks failed right and left and depositers were often left penniless.

By the way, you picked the wrong CT senator. You meant Dodd, right? "Each of these big-money interests applauds his light-handed approach to financial regulation and considers him a reliable friend "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501555.html 

See my post this am quoting Lawrence Summers?. Summers was part of the adult supervision over both Clinton and the Congress in the 1990's.  He shares my opinion the Dodd Fannie/ Freddie fix is a fiasco.   You may need to keep the conduits of finance unclogged, but dammit, you fire the old plumbers who get the pipes clogged , dont'cha. But giving Chris Dodd $100k means the current mgmt  at these places never has to say they're sorry.

 

The myth of 'not enough regulation'

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 07/27/2008 - 22:38.

When you have this situation,  the problem is REGULATION not DEREGULATION. It's unfortunate we fall into the trap of thinking that any economic bump in the road in a rather regulated economic arena is a failure to TOO LITTLE REGULATION, when in fact logically it could be:

1. Too much regulation

2. The wrong kind of regulation

3. failures that could not be corrected by regulation or lack thereof but were wholly different sort.

#3 was prominent in the housing bubble and burst since it was partly due to Fed reserve behavior that over-inflated in previous years (as marked by not just the housing bubble but the commodities boom).  #1 is a factor inas much as previous govt interventions that created 'moral hazard' have enable excess risk-taking, the CRA rules encouraged more lending, and we had 95% loans on ARMS, etc.

What we do not have of course is a pure free market. Perhaps we should. If the market were truly a free market, and we had stablemoney and stable Fed govt policies,  the risks would be borne privately and prudence would result as those who act imprudently get taken to the woodshed.

"This stuff used to be regulated, and it worked. "

Invariably, it 'worked' by raising the overall cost of borrowing. Most regulations work by forbidding some folks from doing things in the market, things which have a competitive advantage.  If you proposed outlawing ARMs with 3yr resets - well that loan saved me thousands so you are taking money out of my pocket. The innovation in the last 10-20 years was the created of CDOs, a market for mortgage instruments.  The housing crunch compounded when than market melted down last year. but was it bad idea? One the great things about the CDO market was that it raised liquidity and lowered costs. If risk assessors could get the right handle on risks, the market is a huge innovation and step forward. Forbidding that is like imposing a tax on mortgages.

Then somehow it was no longer regulated, there were no longer any consequences for failure, and now we the taxpayers are left holding the bag.

That's a false characterization. If we dont do this bailout, the consequences for failure are unchanged from previous periods. If we dont do this bailout, the taxpayers are not left holding the bag. Thus the consistent and correct thing is to not do this bailout.

We see similar 'fixes' in the aftermath of the S&L crisis of the late 1980s. The irony there as well was that multiple acts by the Federal Govt, the 1986 tax bill, the 1989 FIRRA bill, and Federal reserve actions to tighten credit, acted in concert to compound that crisis.

Almost all the financial crises that we ask Congress to fix are crises created by Federal action of one sort or another. We need to keep that in mind when we demand the CONGRESS
"do something" no matter what the consequences.

The demand for Congress to do something...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 07/28/2008 - 08:06.

...is only there because we, as taxpayers, haven't been asked to directly pay for Congress's action.

When members of Congress want to buy off their constituencies, they print more money, or they borrow more money, or both. If the people had to actually pay for Congress's actions, such as the S&L and now this mortgage fiasco, we would have a public demanding that Congress do nothing and let the market take care of itself.

As long as the people are denied the opportunity to learn from their mistakes, as is the case in a true democracy, the fascist state will always end up costing us more of our hard-earned money and our hard-earned liberty.

ex animo

davidfarrar