A “bait-and-switch” pattern is emerging when big Washington programs fail.
You may recall how the $862 billion federal “stimulus” was first supposed to “create” lots of jobs. When most of the jobs did not materialize, the standard for judging the success of the stimulus changed. The Obama administration said the stimulus was “creating or saving” jobs. That standard made it impossible to get a real handle on how many (or few) jobs could be credited to the stimulus.
Now, the president is “moving the target” with another huge federal program: $75 billion in subsidies set aside to help up to 9 million people reduce their mortgage payments and stay in their homes. “You’ll see the effects quite quickly,” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner boasted in 2009 when the program was unveiled.
A year later, it hasn’t worked out that way. Only 170,000 mortgage holders have seen their monthly payments reduced, and only 0.02 percent of the huge sum available has been used. Tens of thousands of homeowners have dropped out.
Part of the problem is that Washington hired thousands of new workers to administer the program, but many of them had no knowledge of the mortgage industry. The program is also incredibly complex, and banks are confused by all the rules and regulations.
But instead of dropping the failed program and saving taxpayers $75 billion, the administration now says it must be judged on how many people are offered help — not on how many actually get it!
“Defining success by how many offers are given can reasonably be perceived as essentially meaningless,” wrote Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, in a sharply worded report on the mortgage aid effort.
Good intentions are fine, but they are no substitute for results when $75 billion is on the line.