God bless you, George McGovern
Say what you want about George McGovern, but he is so right here:
Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages.McGovern also promotes lifting restrictions on healthcare by opening up the market place where individuals can purchase a policy across state-lines.With liberalized credit rules, many people with limited income could access a mortgage and choose, for the first time, if they wanted to own a home. And most of those who chose to do so are hanging on to their mortgages. According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition,their holders neither delinquent nor in default.
There's no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market.
The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out.
He also promotes pay-day lending, saying that it isn't perfect, but reasonable "when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating."
And he closes with this:
Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.George McGovern...the libertarian? I'd never thought I'd see the day.Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.
The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.
H/T: Volokh Conspiracy



Comments
It seems McGovern is the last of the sensible Democrats. It's crazy that he endorsed Hillary for the Democratic nomination. I guess he still has faith in the Democrat Party.
I always knew politicians' words are B.S., but the more I read about presidential politics, the more I think voters should take personality and temperament into account, more so than taking into account what politicians say to get votes. In '72 voters believed the "amnesty, abortion, & acid" label that Robert Novak, and, it turns out, Thomas Eagleton, stuck on George McGovern. Had voters looked at McGovern's biography, i.e. his "real" life, we might've avoided four more years of Nixon.
The Democrat Party ain't what it used to be. It used to be that when a Democrat guaranteed a minimum income (like McGovern in '72), you knew he was lying. Now, a lot of Democrats seem like sincere socialists. This is why I prefer Clinton to Obama on the Democrat side. At least we know the Clintons are liars and hypocrites.
Posted by: Robbie | March 10, 2008 09:18 AM