End of the ‘Ownership Society’
Remember the ownership society? President George W. Bush championed the concept when he was running for re-election in 2004, envisioning a world in which every American family owned a house and a stock portfolio, and government stayed out of the way of the American Dream.
These families were, of course, conservative, or at a minimum traditional and nuclear, consisting of a heterosexual married couple and at least two kids living in a stand-alone home with a yard, a car or two and a multimedia room with a flat-screen television. The latter was a new addition to this 21st-century simulacrum of the 1950s "Leave It to Beaver" idyll. But the dream was the same.
Such a country would be more stable, Bush argued, and more prosperous. "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," he said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse. And as financial strains drive husbands and wives apart, Bush's ownership ideology may end up having the same effect on the stable nuclear families conservatives so badly wanted to foster.
The dream of a better society through homeownership didn't originate with George W. Bush. It's as American as Manifest Destiny. The Homestead Act in 1862 offered acres to anyone willing to brave the Western frontier. During Reconstruction, freed slaves were promised "40 acres and a mule." And after World War II, with Levittown and its cousins, affordable homes were a reward of victory. But until very recently, those hopes and dreams were connected to actual income and gainful employment. No longer.
The giddiness of the Bush years built on the promise of the New Economy era, a promise perfectly encapsulated by a 1999 billboard advertising a shiny new subdivision in Scroggins, Texas, filled with homes that most of their owners couldn't really afford: YES, YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL! That dream took a sharp hit with the collapse of the Internet stock bubble in 2000-2001 and then with 9/11, both of which destroyed billions of dollars of wealth. But it came roaring back in 2002, encouraged by Bush's post-9/11 exhortation that Americans could do their patriotic duty by going shopping and paying lower taxes, even as government spending exploded. Shop they did, and homes they bought.
The spree wasn't confined to the United States. Britain has its own version of the ownership society, which received a boost from Margaret Thatcher, who promoted "a property-owning democracy" that her Labour successors, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, endorsed. Blair liked to talk of building a "stakeholder economy" with a big role for the ordinary property-owning citizen. More recently, Brown has spoken of creating a "homeowning, asset-owning, wealth-owning democracy." Millions were happy to buy into the vision. Tenants of government-owned properties gladly took up Thatcher's offer to sell them their homes at knockdown prices. More than 70 percent of Britons now own their homes, compared with 40 percent of Germans and 50 percent of French.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »


Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: rube @ 11/21/2008 7:52:18 PM
Comment: Ownership society- yeah what Bush didnt realize is that only a few Americans would be owning
the smoldering ashes of a once equitable and great nation!
Posted By: LieXPoser @ 11/07/2008 4:33:10 AM
Comment: NowForTheTruth apparently doesn't know the definition of the word "truth". Can't have facts getting in the way of republican lies.
HR-1461, the 2005 legislation that NFTT is speaking of was indeed sponsored by republicans and marketed as a "regulation" bill. HR-1461 passed in the House with a majority from both parties - almost unanimous by Republicans, almost 2 to 1 by Democrats (apparently half the Dems weren't buying the mockery of a "regulation" bill) - but it was killed in committee in the Senate where Dodd was the chair but a Republican was the ranking member.
Given that the Republicans held a majority in both chambers and had a Republican president they could have passed that bill, or any other, if they wanted to. But that's neither here nor there.
Here's a few things the conservative think tank AEI had to say about the bill:
"While the bill makes some modest improvements to the weak regulatory structure of OFHEO today, these improvements do not bring the authority of the new regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the level currently exercised by federal bank regulators. Moreover, the deficiencies of the bill so far outweigh its modest regulatory improvements that the taxpayers and the economy generally would be better off with current law. "
"the bill limits OFHEO???s [the regulator's] activities immediately after enactment to winding up its operations, but does not authorize the new regulator to begin operations for a year. In the meantime, the GSEs (including the Federal Home Loan Banks) are free from safety-and-soundness oversight, and their expansion into new lines of business would not be controlled. Then, when the new regulator begins operations, it is prohibited from reviewing the activities in which Fannie and Freddie are already engaged. The result is a hiatus in which Fannie and Freddie have a free pass to enter any field that might arguably be related to their mission, with little authority in the new regulator to question its legitimacy under the law. This provision alone should be of concern to the many housing-related industries that might find themselves competing with Fannie and Freddie one year after the enactment of a law that contains the elements of this bill."
And there's lot's more, go read it, (http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22705/pub_detail.asp):
If you want to know the truth don't read the biased articles provided by NowForTheTruth, and don't believe AEI (they are, after all, packed with devious money worshiping republicans), go read the bill for yourself: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.01461:)
Posted By: LieXPoser @ 11/07/2008 4:15:19 AM
Comment: Now