Now that Chelsea Clinton has announced that Obamacare has succeeded in its mission to create “crushing” costs of healthcare to the average American, it’s time for Democrats to move on.
As we attempt to balance our busy lives and pray that we don’t get sick and need medical attention, government’s kick to the shin of the taxpayer struggling to carry their groceries into their house is about to be accompanied by a swift punch in the gut.
The people who want free stuff need to keep voting, and to make that happen, Democrats have to find a new way to trick a majority of people into thinking there’s a crisis that needs some new Trojan horse scam solution.
One option is school loan subsidies; we’ve heard a lot about that over the past few years. The problem is that older voters won’t care, people with jobs won’t think they’ll qualify, and the people who want free stuff don’t pay them anyway.
Free internet is a possibility, but it’s too complicated. People over the age of 50 don’t understand it, people over 60 don’t like to use it, and, again, people with jobs won’t think they’ll qualify. Besides, the cost is too low due to the free market price, untouched by meddling bureaucrats from government agencies.
What’s needed is a few years of F.C.C. regulation for that idea to be ready to force on people. And a catchy slogan has yet to surface – “net neutrality” won’t cut it.
My money is on housing: Obamahome.
First, it’s intensely personal, which government loves. It opens up doors to search and seizure, harassment inside the home, and behavior control or modification devices being forced due to government intervention. “Want your rent paid by the government? Better not eat those donuts over there!”
The most compelling reason, though, is that government has already tinkered with it so much that the prices are already based in the land of make believe.
As a residential real estate appraiser (yes, I happen to be one), people tell me all the time, “Jimmy Q. Buyer has an offer willing to pay $500,000 for this house and you’re telling me that it’s only worth $450,000?”
Now how much would “Jimmy Q” pay if he wasn’t taking out a loan but dipping into his bank account? Probably $12,000 because that’s his down payment.
The entire housing market is propped up by the concept that a bank loan is some kind of pyramid scheme that can be reset by refinancing, add to that the assumption that everyone is under that your home is going to go up in value unrealistically.
Government already has a built-in population of victims willing to vote for a savior, a hero, to tell them that the banks suck, the appraiser is wrong, and the balance of their home loan is some fraudulent demand that they can just ignore.
In reality, this has been in the works for quite some time. Obamahome was probably in some filing cabinet next to Obamacare when a drunk intern grabbed the file and presented it to a semi-nude politician up late in their home office. (Probably Ted Kennedy)
Since 2008, the demonization of mortgage bankers has made this a sure thing, and after all, most homeowners would vote for just about anyone to save a couple of house payments.
Higher mortgage payments to prop up those who can’t afford to pay theirs, a fairness panel that decides where people can or should live, and if you like your home you can keep it! At least until the payment crawls up beyond your means.
But doesn’t that sound great on the campaign trail?
And when the rates climb, the banks will be blamed, and you’ll have another reason to vote Democrat after you’ve settled into your one-bedroom condo on the 43rd floor of some seedy part of the largest city within 50 miles.
So the next time someone asks you what’s the worst thing that could happen if Hillary gets elected, you tell them to double their mortgage payment and consider a government panel that’s tasked to tell you which home you’re allowed to buy. Because Obamahome will make Obamacare seem reasonable. And affordable.