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.
The word "backfire"(Line 3, Para. 8)most probably means
选项 A、to come to their senses.
B、to produce helpful results.
C、to make little progress.
D、to get an outcome against the purpose.
答案D
解析 词义理解题。根据题干提示可以定位至第八段。该段最后一句指出：如果动作太快可能就会backfire，而该段首句就指出：突然撤离支持可能会加深房地产市场的衰退，这应该和最后一句话的意思相近，因此[D]最符合上下文的意思。[A]是对该段第二句的补充，但是第二句和最后一句没有相近的关系，故排除；[B]与[D]意思刚好相反，故排除；[C]“没有进步”和“加深房地产市场的衰退”意思不太相符，故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/dJFRFFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)