Slapped by the facts

Abandoned farm home - Great Depression

Home ownership is typically the largest financial asset of most American families. Equity (the excess value of your home above its mortgage balance) can be tapped to buy a needed new car, finance renovations, or send your kids to college. In retirement, with the mortgage discharged, the home may be sold to finance a nice retirement in Florida, Texas, or some other low tax (and high sun) haven.

Further, home ownership has proved to foster a sense of community far stronger than that of transient rental populations. Neighborhoods with high individual ownership rates tend to be neater and calmer and just nicer to live in. So it’s no wonder that government has fostered the notion that taxpayers’ pockets should be tapped to increase the general overall home ownership rate. What’s not to like about this?

Therefore in bipartisan fashion (meaning both Democrats and Republicans), we passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977. The CRA was intended to coerce banks to make loans that they would not otherwise make. This is odd in that the language of the CRA also required that banks maintain sound and prudent lending practices. In typical government fashion, the banks were put into a bind that they could not escape. If they declined to make loans to uncreditworthy applicants, they would be punished. But if they made loans to uncreditworthy applicants, they would be punished. What’s a poor banker to do?

Since the punishment for not making loans was far greater, the loans rolled out. In association with other government “affordable housing” initiatives, down payments fell as low as 3.75% and losses were insured by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA). Lenders were incented to lend (protected from losses) and borrowers were incented to borrow, all lubricated by taxpayer largess.

The CRA was amped up in 1995 (Clinton) and again in 2005 (Bush). Politicians of both parties love to give our money away. And what did this largess gain us?

The financial crisis of 2008.

While there has been much argument that the CRA (and related government “affordable housing” programs) had no effect on the economy nor led to the financial crisis, a simple application of common sense might indicate otherwise.

• Would a down payment of 20% result in a sounder applicant than 3.75%? In other words, on a $200,000 loan, would you be more likely to walk away (default) if you had paid $40,000 down versus $7,500?

• As a mortgage originator, would you be more or less likely to grant a loan if you knew that the government would cover your losses?

Well, a recent study published by an independent, nonpartisan economic think tank has given us some answers. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), based in Cambridge Massachusetts, has studied the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act. In their report, the NBER pulls no punches. “Did the Community Reinvestment Act(CRA) lead to Risky Lending? Yes, it did... We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks."

Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/yes-community-reinvestment-act-encouraged-banks-make-risky-loans/#storylink=cpy

Barney Frank, who famously gambled with our money in 2003, had this to say then: “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing." But by 2010, Rep. Frank had come to realize the error of his ways: "…it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." Even Barney was jarred into reality when slapped by the facts.

This sad tale reinforces the damage that the government can inflict when meddling with free markets. Although the intentions were admirable, the outcome was disastrous. Sometimes it’s best to let common sense, and a deep understanding of human nature, reign.

Our murderous young sons

James Eagan Holmes

Saturday before last was Gun Appreciation Day. Tens of thousands of gun owners turned out in cities across the country to rally in support of their 2^nd amendment rights. Certainly, you heard of the outbreak of gun attacks perpetrated at these gatherings. (No, we didn’t either). That’s because honest citizens with legally owned guns are not the problem.

But something is definitely going on – our young men are murdering us.

Nehemiah Griego, 15
Dylan Klebold, 17
Eric Harris, 18
Robert Hawkins, 19
Adam Lanza, 20
Tyler Peterson, 20
Jared Loughner, 22
Seung-Hui Cho, 23
James Holmes, 24

This is a partial list of deranged young men who have succumbed to their demons, murdering their fellow humans in a sociopathic rage often punctuated by suicide. In addition to their gender and age, they seem to have another thing in common – photographs reveal them as being disturbingly similar, with pin-point thousand-yard-stare eyes surrounded by stark white scelerae. What is going on here? How do we discover the ultimate cause?

Our culture has changed; that’s a certainty. Closer to the middle of the last century, guns were not vilified as today. A pickup truck with deer rifles in the rear window gun-rack was common, parked on Main Street or even in the high school parking lot. No one was terrified, no one was disturbed. Farmers strode into the Agway or hardware store with their “mouse gun” on their hip and no one called the cops. No need, for these were honest citizens who did not present a threat.

Fast forward fifty years and it’s all different. Now, monsters in human disguise mow down school children. Gang bangers and drug warriors battle with each other and innocent bystanders. The carnage in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington (centers of the strictest gun controls) is enormous. What is going on?

Here are some things that have changed over the last fifty years:

- The breakdown of the traditional family; millions of young men raised without male role models

- Government has become the defacto father of these unhappy young men; handouts stultifying their self-worth; gangs becoming their families

- Extreme gore and violence is endemic in the media, movies, and video games

- The war on drugs has fueled an enormous, lucrative market for drugs which is fiercely defended with deadly violence

- Our mental health system has changed drastically, with long-term hospitalization replaced by socialization, leaving potentially murderous patients living in the community

So when you hear someone decrying “gun violence”, you will know that they are already on the wrong track. The problem is violence, it doesn’t matter what kind. For instance, did you know that more murders are committed by striking implements (clubs, hammers, etc.) than by all kinds of rifles, “assault” or otherwise? We will make no real progress until we begin understanding, and countering, the underlying causes of violence. 

The lost souls sacrificed to our murderous young men demand nothing less.

Saving only one life

"The Life Line," Winslow Homer, 1884

Vice President Joe Biden, appointed by President Barack Obama to oversee a commission on gun policy following the horrific massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14^th, has established his criteria for making legislation.

“If our actions result in saving only one life, they’re worth taking,” Biden proclaimed at a meeting of victims and gun control proponents at the White House on January 9^th.

Let’s stop and consider this. According to the Vice President, the saving of one life is justification for taking legislative action which may affect the constitutional liberties of millions of Americans. Not to say that this is undesirable, but let’s consider a few scenarios.

On Monday January 7^th, a California mother was taken into custody for the death of her 2-year-old step-daughter. Proximate cause? According to police, she forced the child to ingest chili powder. Who knew that chili powder is poisonous to young children? The possession of chili powder should be immediately banned. After all, who actually needs chili powder? “If our actions result in saving only one life, they’re worth taking.”

In late March, 2011, a Georgia woman was killed by an injection of silicon intended to augment the allure of her buttocks. Morris Garner, a transgender, cross-dressing, unlicensed cosmetologist who formerly served in the military discovered that body-augmenting procedures might be profitable. So he hooked up with the unfortunate victim on the Internet. His lack of a license did not deter her, but led unfortunately to her death. Silicon injections for cosmetic purposes should be immediately banned. After all, who actually needs to have augmented buttocks? “If our actions result in saving only one life, they’re worth taking.”

Toledo, Ohio, August, 2011.  A 62-year-old women died from asphyxiation after falling head-first into her city issued recycling bin. It is likely that Sheila Decoster was trying to dispose of a small bag of recyclables but fell into the bin and perished from “positional asphyxia”. Clearly, these recycling bins are far more dangerous than we have been told. They should be promptly banned. “If our actions result in saving only one life, they’re worth taking.”

A recent Huffington Post article reports that 178 children have been killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries. That's nearly nine Sandy Hooks. Do we hear a cry from the administration to curtail these strikes? “If our actions result in saving only one life, they’re worth taking.”

Not to make Mr. Biden sound foolish, but he is. Pandering to emotion to force political change is the worst kind of demagoguery. Legislation need be formed rationally, coolly, logically. Costs and benefits, rights and responsibilities must be carefully considered and balanced. We, the governed, deserve the benefit of the big picture, not the hormone rush of high emotion.

Dreams of the sovereign

We’re an odd bunch, we Americans. We prize our individuality, our liberty; we compete, we like to win. But when the situation demands, we coalesce and pull together, then separate again as the crisis passes. World War II was a great example – individual liberty was sacrificed to the greater good of protecting and perpetuating our country, our values, our way of life. We willingly bought War Bonds, submitted to rationing, hung blackout curtains, and joined the services in droves. But after the war, sailors and soldiers and Marines shed their uniforms and returned to the bustling, unruly competition of civilian life.

The key to this collectivization is its voluntary and temporary nature. When we recognize a threat to “us,” we willingly take up the traces. But when subservience is tyrannically imposed, we bristle, resist, and subvert. It's human nature. Note the Arab Spring, the French Revolution, and our own Revolutionary War.

Societies vary in the degree of individualism permitted. For instance, under Islamist rule, thou darest not be Christian. In China, you must not speak your mind unless you are in alignment with the Party. Even in England and Canada, you may be prosecuted for the offense of “offending” another. And many countries on Earth demand that their citizens be disarmed (hint – subservient).

Much to the dismay of the United Nations, we in the United States come from a much different mindset. Our Founding Fathers, reacting to the strictures of the English sovereign, turned that paradigm on its head and declared that “all men are created equal.” Gasp – a concept unknown in the world at that time, and still unknown to vast reaches of the Earth today.

We have something special, folks. Think about it. You are the boss of your life. If you want to be Christian, so be it. If you want to be Muslim, that’s cool. “None of the above” is a perfectly acceptable alternative as well. The government is subordinate to you – you are the sovereign!

So how does a nation of over 300 million individual sovereigns accomplish anything? In spite of the protestations of those of the liberal bent, our system rewards individual effort and risk taking, and the sum of those parts is enormously powerful in giving us all the benefit of a brisk, growing, and munificent engine of wealth. Oh, to be poor in America – the reason that our borders are overrun.

Financial dislocations, depressions, recessions are wholly due to foolish governmental interventions. There are no exceptions. If we were free to each pursue our individual dreams, the sum of our efforts would provide increasing wealth and employment and security. It is government policies, distorting market forces, which cause us pain. Social engineering, the holy grail of progressives, is our bane. With the exception of equal rights for all humans (black, white, female, male, gay, or Episcopalian), they are wrong on all other counts.

Leave us our individual dreams; have faith that the collective result will be excellent. We are each, after all, sovereign.

Let's control the maniacs

Insane Asylum, Jacksonville IL - 1901

First, we must agree to set political correctness aside. It is a scourge that inhibits critical thought and open, honest debate. After the enormous evil visited upon Sandy Hook Elementary School, political correctness will not serve us well. We must be brutally honest with ourselves.

Our culture has changed – there is no denying it.

And the statistics are very odd. David Kopel, writing in theWall Street Journal on 12/18/12, cites a University of Alabama analysis of a New York Police Department study of “active shooters.” While the nation’s overall homicide rate has dropped by over half since 1980, the number of mass shootings has increased markedly: 18 incidents in the 1980s, 54 in the 1990s, and 87 in the 2000s. Let that sink in – we are far safer overall than we were in the 1980s, but the number of high profile, media-splashed, mass shootings has increased markedly.

How are we going to address this problem? We must start by recognizing what has happened to us.

Coarsening of culture

The  violence in movies, video games, rap videos, etc, is so commonplace as to become acceptable, even normal. Each successive movie seems bent on exceeding the visceral impact of its predecessors. Is it any accident that James Holmes, the shooter in Aurora, Colorado, dyed his hair red and told arresting officers that he was “The Joker?”

Copycat acts fueled by the 24x7 news-hungry media

It seems that many of these shooters are driven by a need for recognition. A man was stopped by the Maine State Police in July with clippings of the aforementioned Aurora Batman massacre. He had just seen the Batman movie, was heavily armed, and was on his way to New York where he planned to kill his former boss.

Shutdown of mental hospitals

As far back as October 30, 1984, the New York Times recognized that we had a serious problem. In an article titled “How Release of Mental Patients Began”, the Times laments “The policy that led to the release of most of the nation's mentally ill patients from the hospital to the community is now widely regarded as a major failure.” The politicians’ zeal to close mental intuitions was supported by the theory that mental illness could be chemically managed. (And at a far lower cost – that was the attraction). Only problem was, it wasn’t working.

Another scary statistic – fully half of the active shooters mentioned above were proved mentally defective. How many of the remainder had mental problems as well? Is it an accident that young, white, socially maladjusted males make up the majority of the shooters?

Ejection of Christianity from the public square

In an apparent misreading of the First Amendment, thinking that we were guaranteed “freedom from religion”, liberals have rushed to eliminate religious influences from the public square. Moral relativism, preached by secular humanists, claims that Christian values are in no way superior to, say, the Taliban interpretation of Sharia law that justifies the subjugation, beating, and shooting of women who do not submit.

We have created a void of values which, in the face of the other cultural influences above, is very dangerous.

Imaginary ”gun free zones”

Hold firm to your grip on the pledge to avoid political correctness. This one is tough. Almost all of the mass shootings studied by the New York Police Department occurred in imaginary gun free zones. An actual gun free zone requires metal detectors and armed guards to enforce it – witness our airports since 9/11. An imaginary gun free zone is declared by government fiat or corporate policy, but is not enforced. Prime examples are shopping malls, movie theaters, schools, and post offices.

The characteristic of imaginary gun free zones is that law abiding citizens obey the rules while criminals, maniacs, and other evildoers do not. This creates all the conditions required for a massacre – defenseless citizens become the prey of armed perpetrators. As good as our first responders are, they just can’t get there in time.

How can we proceed?

So what are we to do? The prescription seems obvious. We need a renewal of ethical values to counteract the inevitable coarsening of culture. Whether these values are religion-based or not, they must abhor the taking of life and be inculcated early into our young.

We need to be judicious in how early and often our youth are exposed to violence in the media and on the internet. A tough problem, but one that deserves serious debate. Hollywood will push back vigorously.

We need to readdress the availability of mental health services and long term institutionalization of the violently insane. It is crazy that anyone, even with no insurance, can get treatment for a broken leg, but parents with a disturbed teenager have few options.

Where gun free zones are desired, we must create actual ones, not just imaginary. Metal detectors and armed guards are required to do so. If a government agency or corporation requires you to give up your means of defense, then it becomes responsible for defending you.

And we must look to our politicians to lead. Governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, in his foolish eagerness to banish Christmas, and hence Christ and Christian values, from the public square, is not part of the solution. Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, in his equally unwise bid to eliminate long-term psychiatric beds, is likewise part of the problem.

This is not an easy problem to solve. And focusing on guns alone is a dangerous red herring. These young perpetrators are crazy but not stupid – there are many other ways to wreak havoc. The root cause must be addressed – maniac control.