mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
The Great Inequality Debate
White House Understands Land Use Problems
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Anthony

    This is how policies skew wealth distribution and regulations foreclose market/social opportunities, consequence attributable to: leftist inclinations.

    Observation: much is implied by terms left and right and term “leftist” appears more frequently in TAI’s posting than it did before conversion (from ViaMeadia to American Interest Format). As a regular reader of subject matter, trying to get at etymology of term often used to juxtapose narratives as well as have an emotive affect remains important to contextual understanding. Perhaps this is a subjective interpretation, but (for me) better understanding term in use by authors critiquing a specific governing model helps to distinguish philosophies (Burkean – Paine) (Jacobin – Status quo ante) (Whigs – Tories) (Republican – Democrat [classical sense]) supposedly imbued thereof.

    “The French Revolution gave the English language three politically descriptive words denoting Anti-progressive politics: reactionary, conservative, and right.” Now, use of term “leftist” as frequently cited in TAI briefs is an appellation meaning just what precisely – some perceived governing model post 1945 or caricatured …?

  • Fat_Man

    Land use, and its cousin building codes are only half the equation. The other half is finance.

    The administration has done nothing to change the financial model that underlay the Panic of 2008 (and the early 1990s S&L collapse). The model consists of pushing money to finance house purchases that the buyers cannot afford, and cannot hold onto through a slump.

    Before the 1970s, the buyer had to show up with a 20% down payment, and had to hold debt payments (pti) to less than 25% of income. The Feds decided (at the behest of builders, construction unions, and real estate agents) to lower these requirements (right into the ground) so that housing prices could soar beyond incomes.

    The Feds created the market for pooling mortgages and selling them to investors. The Federal agencies Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, and FHA bought the mortgages from the banks and brokers that issued them. They adopted the Community Reinvestment Act to force the Banks to lend money to people who were unlikely to be able to pay it back.

    The administration has done FF nothing to fix this. In fact they are still pumping out 3% down payment mortgages. “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.”

  • iconoclast

    In a push between appeasing the radical environmentalists and taking the right steps for growth appeasement will win hands down. If, for no other reason, than there are no obvious constituencies for growth as well as little chance to reward cronies.

  • azt24

    “He has, on the whole, sided with inner city kids against teacher unions
    more than many Democrats dared to do, and seems to understand the
    importance of school choice.”

    Oh, really? What has Obama done for inner city kids? He keeps trying to kill the DC voucher system
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-d-c-voucher-snub-1423267081

    You show me where he has ever given inner city kids anything besides lip service, if that.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Ronald Reagan spent years reducing Government regulations to make it operate more efficiently. It is pretty arrogant to think that the Obama administration which loves Big Government, with 10’s of thousands of pages of regulations, is suddenly going to become skillful at reducing regulations when all their previous practice is at making ever more burdensome regulations. “Actions speak louder than words” I will believe that this administration is going to cut regulations when I see them cut regulations, until then it’s just words from a proven LIAR.

  • Boritz

    “White House economists and President Obama himself are worried about how this overregulation increases income inequality and decreases mobility.”

    Someone “worried” about overregulation would decrease regulation. Instead we have more regulation of the suburbs in the form of
    the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule (AFFH). IOW there is no such thing as overregulation. Just a never-ending need to tweak regulation ever upward.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service