America is in an affordable housing crisis. I know this because
Democrats say so. But rest assured. The Dems are on top of it.

On October 10, the House of Representatives passed a bill that
would set up a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Who cares?
Normally, no one. But in this instance the Democrats seem to care
-- a lot. The program isn't important because of what it will do
but because of what Democrats think it will do. As one
Democratic congressman said, it "restores our nation's promise of a
decent home for every American family."

Democrats make no secret about what this means. Rep. Barney
Frank (D-MA), who sponsored the bill, readily admits, "The
Trust Fund will be the largest expansion in federal housing
programs in decades." It's a way "to get the federal government
back in the affordable housing production business," said Rep.
Maxine Waters (D-CA). It would allocate up to $1 billion per year
to construct or repair 1.5 million low-income housing units in the
next ten years. Anyone who's ever lived in a communist country can
vouch for the success of ten-year plans.

No matter how lovely the intentions, it's not the federal
government's job to build houses. Promising universal housing is
bound to disappoint. The Soviet Constitution similarly guaranteed
its citizens the right to affordable housing. Last time I checked,
that didn't turn out very well.

It's true that Democrats do not want to replicate USSR housing
policy. That would be too obvious. But they do want something
vaguely similar, which is for government to "make" housing
affordable (read: free) by decree. It's a simple idea, really. If
government can make housing affordable, then -- voila! --
people can afford housing.

It's not easy to oppose this. But such is the stigma that
plagues conservatives, who also hate health care and peace.
Democrats have long had the advantage on the rhetorical front in
domestic politics. Now that they are back in power, they are
exploiting this advantage at all costs -- to the taxpayers. "It has
been 17 years since the federal government last enacted a major
affordable housing production program," said Mrs. Waters. "The time
has long since passed to enact another one."

Are Democrats really concerned about housing, or are they more
interested in patting themselves on the back for a job well done?
Their rhetoric suggests the latter. One congressman has compared
the new program to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, saying it proves once
again that Democrats are on the right side of history. After the
bill was passed, Congresswoman Waters said it must be "a very
exciting day" for poor people because they finally "get a chance to
see their government responding to one of the most critical needs
in our society." Rep. David Scott (D-GA) declared, "It is us on the
Democratic side that are clearly responding to the needs of the
American people here."

But here's the thing: Who doesn't need affordable
housing? Everyone needs it, just as everyone also needs breathable
air, edible food and drinkable water. However, just because
something is universally needed doesn't mean it should be
collectively distributed.

The administration, to its credit, has threatened to veto the
legislation. As the White House's Office of Management and Budget
noted, the program is "redundant" and "duplicative," seeing that
another federal program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program,
already does essentially the same thing on a $2 billion budget.
Furthermore, according to the Center for Community Change, there
are already 600 housing trust funds in cities, counties and states
that cost a total of $1.6 billion each year. In total, there are 34
HUD programs that already promote affordable housing for low-income
Americans.

"Yes," admitted Rep. Al Green (D-TX), "there are other housing
programs. Some say thirty; some say more than thirty. Every one of
them is needed, every one of them." Clearly they must be doing a
bang-up job, considering the housing crisis we're now in.

Why do we need more of the same? When is enough enough?

"We're creating, yes, and we're expanding," explained
Congressman Scott. "Why? Because the problem has expanded."

This perfectly encapsulates the Democratic mode of thinking:
Expand first, explain later. Democrats know the solution before
most people know there's a problem. In fact, their answer is what
leads them to the question. ("Subsidized housing is urgently
needed. Why? Oh, because there's an affordable housing crisis.
Good, now we can start building people homes.")

By and large, Democrats know ahead of time they want to expand
government, so they must go searching for crises, real or imagined,
to justify their programs. Their need for crises in part explains
why there always seem to be so many and why, curiously, in every
case the solution is always the same: more government.

The best way to guarantee affordable housing is for the federal
government to get out of the way. If people kept more of their
paychecks, they'd be better able to afford their own homes.
Democrats think this is too much to ask of Americans. "Working,"
according to Maxine Waters, "is simply no longer a guarantee of
being able to afford housing." In her view, the only jobs that can
guarantee housing are those held by Democrats in Congress.

Accommodating the poor is a noble goal, but at some point
permanent government housing is no longer a solution worth
affording.