The so-called "stimulus" package, and $838 billion spending boondoggle, passed the Senate today by a vote of 61-37; only 3 Republicans voted in favor of the bill.  The idea that government confiscation of money from the paychecks of working Americans and transferring that money to individuals, businesses, and other projects favored by the government deserves a column to itself, and (at least) one will follow later this week.  One failed amendment in particular caught my eye, however, as it was supported by senators who (rightly) derided the spending bill as ultimately ineffective, inefficient Big Government intrusion on the economy and on the liberties of American citizens.

This amendment offered by Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada), entitled the "Fix Housing First Act", shows that there are sadly many who still see government intrusion as good and effective, they just differ in the laundry list of spending priorities.  As if government intrusion on the housing market hadn't already done enough harm (heard of the subprime mortgage meltdown and the housing bubble?  See here and here for more), Sen. Ensign proposes a new government program whereby American homeowners could get a new mortgage or refinance their current mortgages with the government at a rate of 4%.  The plan also included a $15,000 tax credit for home sales.

So let's get this straight:  the way to proceed out of a problem caused by the government providing incentives that distorted the market towards the purchase of new homes is a new government program to further distort the market in favor of the purchase of new homes.  This new incentive comes at the expense of people who don't purchase homes, of course.  Sounds rather analogous to treating an alcoholic by plying him with more alcohol — to be paid for by extracting money involuntarily from tee-totalers.  Does this make sense to anyone?

Of course, there's an underlying question there, beyond the economic effect of such government intervention:  what business is it of the government whether or not someone buys or rents a home?  I see nothing in our founding documents that proscribes this as a legitimate or expected function of government.

The Republican Party has lost a lot of support in the past 2 election cycles, in no small part because while they often used the rhetoric of limited government, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and individual liberty, they oversaw an unprecedented expansion of government spending and intrusion, and at the very least were willing participants in many of the ill-conceived housing interventions that contributed to the current crisis.  They started seeing and using government as the solution, rather than realizing that all-too-often government created the very problems it then tries to solve.

Americans do not need a government takeover of the housing mortgage market any more than we need a government takeover of health care.  If they want to provide alternatives to the Obama "stimulus" plan, Republicans would be well-served to go back to the drawing board and propose instead free market solutions that decrease the size and scope of government and leave families and individuals with more of their own money and with more freedom and liberty.