2. 考研
  3. The question of what to do about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—the two government-created enterprises that have backed massive loan

The question of what to do about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—the two government-created enterprises that have backed massive loan

admin2015-03-25  35
问题     The question of what to do about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—the two government-created enterprises that have backed massive loans to the housing market—involves much more than finance or real estate. It marks the end of an era. The relentless promotion of homeownership as the embodiment of the American dream has outlived its usefulness.
    In some ways, owning a home contributes to neighborhood stability and encourages property improvement. Unfortunately, we let a sensible goal become a foolish fetish. Not everyone can become a homeowner. Some are too young and footloose; some are too old and dependent; some are too poor or irresponsible. Even with these gaps, homeownership is virtually universal among the middle-aged middle class.
    Government subsidizes homeownership in two ways: through tax and spending policies and through credit markets. Tax breaks for homeowners exceeded $120 billion in 2009. These benefits go heavily to higher-income borrowers, who are encouraged to buy bigger and more expensive homes that generate larger tax savings. This is both unfair and unnecessary. By contrast, government subsidies for lower-income renters are skimpier, totaling about 25 percent of the support for homeowners.
    The cheap credit subsidy operates mainly through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These government-sponsored enterprises(GSEs)were economic mongrels: profit-making companies that were given goals of expanding homeownership among poorer buyers. The GSEs could borrow at interest rates barely above the U. S. Treasury’s, because investors regarded Fannie and Freddie bonds as backed by the government.
    It seemed a perfect marriage: The GSEs would earn profits and pass along the benefits of cheaper credit by financing or guaranteeing mortgage loans. Congress could promote homeownership outside budget constraints. But the marriage between private profit and public purpose failed. In September 2008, the Bush administration took over Fannie and Freddie, which faced huge losses from bad mortgages.
    In an ideal world, we would throw away failed policies. We would change or end the mortgage-interest tax cut. We would tighten the GSEs’ loans and guarantees. The trouble is that the ideal solution may be temporarily undesirable. The housing market, as everyone knows, has collapsed.
    Ironically, the GSEs have become more important than ever. Private lenders, which once regarded a mortgage secured by a home as a highly safe investment, now see it as highly risky. Few new mortgages are made without government guarantees.
    This means that sudden withdrawals of support might deepen housing’s depression. Some economists have made sensible proposals to scale back Fannie and Freddie. But done too quickly, they could backfire.
    The single-minded promotion of homeownership failed and, paradoxically, undermined the American dream. It contributed to the housing "bubble" and favors housing investment over new industries and technologies. But to end it, we need to make haste slowly.
We can know from the two ways of government subsidizing homeownership that
选项 A、tax breaks prefer higher-income borrowers to lower-income renters.
B、the GSEs can make profits by selling properties to poorer buyers.
C、private profit and public purpose seemed a perfect marriage.
D、the GSEs would pass along all their profits to home buyers.
答案A
解析 推理判断题。根据题干关键词the two ways和government subsidizing homeownership定位至第三段。该段第三句和第五句指出：这些优惠在很大比例上都到了高收人借款人的手中，而政府给低收入租房者的补贴是非常吝啬的，综合起来可推知[A]正确。第四段第二句指出：这些政府支持的企业是个盈利的公司，其目标让贫穷买者买得起房，[B]是对这句话的误解；第五段第三句指出：私营利润和公共目的之间的联姻失败了，因此排除[C]；第五段第一句指出：这些GSE可以将低价的信贷优惠传递开来，但并不是说将所有的盈利都传递出去，因此[D]错误。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/WJFRFFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)