Source #4

Summary:

         Los Angeles Times columnist Daniel J. Mitchell’s article, Should Taxpayers Fund the American Dream?  Revolves around government assistance with home ownership, which caused a spike in real estate purchases in 2008.  Mitchell focuses his article on the aspects of housing, but this also represents his distaste for the American government intervening on many areas of the population.  Mitchell uses Hong Kong as an example, they have “enjoyed astounding economic success because government rarely interferes in the market,” (Mitchell, 1) The government has attempted to make purchasing housing more alluring through interest deductions and subsidizing for lower income families; where Mitchell finds fault is by making purchasing housing so appealing, the government loses money in other forms of investments.  With this decrease in money, the future growth of the economy is stunted and hurt in the long run.  The final fault which Mitchell points out, is that other subsidies which our government has placed in the past years, have brought about nothing but more problems.  Mitchell expects that loans would be given more frequently to those with poor credit, and does more bad than good.  He finishes his article with the strong statement, “Maybe it’s time to replace the government mistakes with market forces.” (Mitchell, 2) To further express the need for less government interference in the market.

Response:

         Mitchell writes an argument which lacks a real statistic base, but his emotional response and facts make up for this.  Published by the L.A. Times, even without statistics Mitchell is able to explain his ideas for why the American government should not intervene in the United States housing again.  The comparisons of Hong Kong, the United States, and France are a nice addition to the article.  What facts Mitchell did involve were excerpts from the actual housing plans the government has created, which you can tell where his arguments come from.  Mitchell explains that the involvement of the government in things such as home ownership usually have nothing but, “truly catastrophic consequences.”  Where Mitchell may be wrong, is with the idea that assistance with housing will be a major issue.   Home ownership is a major driving force of the American Dream and people may actually work harder to keep their new home.  This information may be somewhat out of date, seeing as it was written in October of 2008.  The nice part of Mitchell’s article was how correct he was, he expected this policy to create a housing bubble in response to the 2007 crisis, which today in 2012 hold true.  The best part of this article in was Mitchell’s strong closing statement, “Maybe it’s time to replace government mistakes with market forces.” (Mitchell, 2)  If the government intrusion into everyday life with things such as attempts to control the internet, or the current housing these reductions in regulations may allow business and thoughts to prosper.