surely you don't think the Greens will fix the problem, and the Libertarians won't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

I'm naive enough to vote for the like; yes, I think so.

To my understanding, the theory behind promoting home ownership is that owners have more of an interest in their property and neighborhood than renters, so they take better care of the property and raise values in the area, leading to a virtuous cycle of stability, lower crime, higher property values, and higher tax revenues.

I'm not sure how the Clinton administration pushed people into mortgages any more than any other administration, but perhaps someone can fill me in on specifics. Credit has been cheap, but that's not unique to the mortgage industry.

But there certainly has been a spate of people induced into buying mortgages who couldn't afford them, and those mortgages being packaged and bought by financial institutions who had no idea how bad those loans would be if housing prices dropped.

Even if home ownership is a good thing, which can be disputed, my gripe is with the home mortgage interest deduction. There's no reason why people who can afford a million dollar home should get any tax break for it. If the purpose is to get people into their first houses, it would be phased out with income. Instead, the higher your tax bracket, the bigger your subsidy. That's just perverse. I think it's just a sop to the construction industry, which gets to raise housing prices because they know buyers will be able to deduct the mortgage interest from their taxes.

The deduction is in essence a government subsidy of over $70 billion (at least as of 2005). Hard to say we couldn't do better things with that money.

Slate articles on the home mortgage interest deduction here and here. Chances of getting rid of it are probably slim to none since you've got homeowners, realtors, and the construction industry behind it.

Not entirely:

So far, we have here three reasons "why Barack Obama will not be elected."

• The GOP ticket has more qualified candidates.
• Events in Obama's past show he isn't the man he's cracked up to be.
• The Bradley Effect.

If Obama loses, I wonder which reason the usual pundits will specify; if he wins, then it's all as good as used food opinionwise.

Sep 22, 2008 11:55 pm US/Pacific

Marin County Town Changes Name To 'Obama'

OLEMA (AP) ― Motorists entering the quaint, woodsy town of Olema near the sea in Marin County may notice a subtle change as they enter: it appears the burg's name has been changed to ''Obama.''

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama supporter and bed and breakfast owner Kelly Emery created a perfect mirror of the green sign people read as they enter the town's limits.

Now people unfamiliar with the area may think they are entering the town of Obama, population: 55.

Emery's sign has created little fuss in this politically liberal area, but the county said there are laws regulating such behavior.

Marin County senior planner Curtis Havel said county code allows for political signs on one's residence or place of business not more than 45 days prior to an election.


===============================================================

The Wikipedia article about Olema bears this information:

2008, a town resident put up a sign reading "Obama", playing on the similarity of the name of Presidential Candidate and U.S. Senator Barack Obama with the town's name and leading to erroneous reports that the town had changed its name.[citation needed]

The man hasn't been formally elected, much less inaugurated, and there's agitation for his impeachment!

Whadda country!