Don't Fall For RFK Jr.'s Home Loan Scheme
Kennedy’s plan for government-backed mortgage bonds will do to housing what federal student loans have done to college tuition.

America's housing crisis is real, and it's getting worse. Home prices have shot up by an average of 30 percent over the past several years, and in 2023 home sales were lower than they had been in almost 30 years. A recent survey revealed that only 53 percent of non-homeowners believe they could one day own a home, while 12 percent say the possibility of owning a home feels "hopeless." The Cold And Uncared For Society (CAUFS) defines housing as unaffordable if it costs more than 30 percent of an individual's income, yet more than 18 million households in the U.S. currently pay more than half their income for housing.
In response to this crisis, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has proposed a new federal home loans program, aiming to provide government-backed 3 percent mortgage bonds to anyone unable to afford a house.
"If you have a rich uncle who co-signs your mortgage, you will get a lower interest rate because the bank looks at his credit rating," Kennedy said at a town hall in South Carolina. "I'm going to give everyone a rich uncle, and his name is Uncle Sam."
This should ring an ominous bell to anyone trying to pay off federal college loans. Kennedy's plan is essentially a clone of the federal student loans program but for first-time home buyers instead of teenage college students. The concept is that if you can't buy a house because of insufficient funds, the government will lend you the money. What could possibly go wrong?
To answer this question, just look at what happened with federal student loans. Colleges know that students have access to easy loans, so they raise tuition with little fear of losing enrollment. This has resulted in a vicious cycle where college tuition far outpaces inflation, leaving millions burdened with crippling debt and limited financial opportunities after graduating.
As student loan debts ballooned, so did tuition rates. The Congressional Budget Office reports that between 1995 and 2017 federal student loan debt grew "from $187 billion to $1.4 trillion (in 2017 dollars)." This is because colleges kept raising tuition, knowing that students could borrow to cover it.
Al Lord, the former CEO of Sallie Mae—once the largest federal student loans lender—explained the phenomenon simply: "Schools were able to hike tuition since students now had expanded access to loans." Lord further admitted that colleges raise tuition rates "because they can, and the government facilitates it."
A study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York revealed that each additional dollar in student aid corresponds to a 60-cent increase in tuition. The pattern is clear: more student aid means higher tuition.
Applying this logic to Kennedy's home loan plan, it's easy to see the potential pitfalls. If the government makes it easier to buy homes, will it lead to higher prices? Almost certainly, because Kennedy's proposal doesn't address the core problem: There aren't enough houses in the market for people to buy.
Construction of multifamily housing units in America has declined by one-third since 1987, and of those built in 2021, only 5.4 percent were for sale as condominiums rather than rental apartments. This scarcity drives prices up, creating a market where even modest homes are out of reach for many.
Onerous regulations, such as single-family zoning, height restrictions, and permitting delays make it difficult to build more housing, which is the key to solving the crisis. Yet, these harmful rules persist because local politicians are afraid to upset residents who fear that new developments will raise housing costs. However, research shows in reality, these developments reduce the cost of housing.
A basic grasp of economics makes clear that when supply is low, prices go up. To lower prices, we certainly shouldn't replicate the student loans debacle by giving people federal bonds that will undoubtedly lead to further price increases. We should build more homes.
If Kennedy wants to solve the housing crisis, he should start by understanding it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
EVERYONE has a "Rich Uncle Sam", so let us PARTY ALL DAY AND EVERY NIGHT, and NEVER worry about... WHO will pay for the party!!!
Party on, dudes, dudettes, and dudesses! (And ALL udders and otters whom I may have neglected, defected, deflected, dejected, inspected, and rejected!)
I stop listening at the phrase "new federal program".
I will drink to that.
Well, to be fair I will drink to most anything. But still. I tip my G&T to you.
“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
― Thomas Sowell
He has certainly learned the first lesson of politics.
You're not wrong.
My “rich uncle” sure likes to spend my money.
"Don't Fall For RFK Jr.'s Home Loan Scheme"
Vote Biden, he'd never do something like this.
But RFK is still so dreamy, right ML?
Just a reminder:
https://reason.com/2024/04/21/how-to-be-the-presidents-kid/?comments=true#comment-10530202
Compared to your senile puppet? Absolutely.
Like Trump, RFK Jr. has a big pile of stupid ideas. From his anti-nuclear stance to this. But stuff like this is small small bananas if he throws a monkey wrench in the schemes of your fascist oligarchy.
I'll take an old time lefty who actually believes in civil rights over your goosestepping ilk any day.
I this was 1932 Lying Jeffy would be bitching about Paul von Hindenburg, and throwing gotchas at anyone who preferred him.
If this were 1932 you would be the one supporting the Nazis because, while they have a "pile of stupid ideas" like killing the Jews, they aren't those Uniparty Deep State morons like Hindenburg
You’re such a lying Cunt. Get the fuck out of here.
I’ll take an old time lefty who actually believes in civil rights over your goosestepping ilk any day.
Right, so you actually believe the nonsense about "if the other team wins America is doomed" crap. You realize that both teams do that just to scare you into voting for them, because they don't have sensible affirmative reasons to vote for them? They can only drive people to the polls using fear and hate of the other team. That is their voter manipulation tactic.
You're just another addled brainwashed moron who buys into the fearmongering tactic. Either that or you are purposefully trying to manipulate people here using that fearmongering tactic. Probably a little bit of both.
The correct solution of course is not to support either team with their crappy tactics.
Yeah, you exclusively support team blue. Such a goddamn liar, aren’t you?
I can see why Kennedy compared to Trump would be a hard one to decide on. They both aren't great ideas but when compared to the options the DNC has given us they look a lot better.
All three of them are downright awful.
Don’t worry, you will aggressively support Biden no matter what.
Not that I'm going to vote for Biden, like it would matter anyhow, I live in South Dakota, all three of our electors will be voting Republican, but I can understand tactically why Libertarians would want 4 more years of Biden and as few Republicans in office as possible.
We aren't going to return to a constitutional limited federal government without something huge and painful happening at the federal level. Republicans in power won't actually do anything to fix the problems but they offer an excuse to the Democrats. "Our programs would have worked if it wasn't for those meddlesome Republicans!" Then the Republicans all act like fucking Shaggy and laugh.
Instead of trying to take the wheel and turning away from the cliff we need to let the Democrats drive us over that cliff and crash. We need the Republicans to be so few in the House and Senate that when the Democrats claim it was the Wascly Wepubwicans who screwed up everything people have to wonder how that is true when the Republicans are a tiny minority of the legislature.
Then we have a shot to make the limited government pitch stick and put the nation back on track. Otherwise se its just more of the same.
Otherwise known as the Ayn Rand Voting Strategy
According to the Reason Commenting Rules, the moment a person expresses any kind of support whatsoever for any candidate, no matter how lukewarm or milquetoast, that person becomes completely responsible for every single one of that candidate's policies. Example: Eric Boehm
So, ML, would you care to tell us why you support RFK's program of government-subsidized home loans for everyone?
"According to the Reason Commenting Rules, the moment a person expresses any kind of support whatsoever for any candidate, no matter how lukewarm or milquetoast, that person becomes completely responsible for every single one of that candidate’s policies."
You do invent the most amazing bullshit.
Not my fault that you and your team make up the stupidest rules around here. You don't get to wiggle out of your own stupid rules.
Why don't you tell us why you are opposed to nuclear power and why you support government-subsidized home loans for everyone, like what your preferred candidate RFK wants to do
No you're a nazi!
No you're a nazi!
No you're a nazi!
This is just dumb coming from you or Jeff who spent a week calling Trump Hitler.
Why don’t you tell us why you exclusively support the Democrats?
I would say, he pulls it out of his ass, but there’s no earthly way he could reach his rectum with all that blubber in the way.
I wash myself with a rag on a stick.
Could be, but I see Jeffy as lazy, and less industrious.
LOL Matt Gaetz discovers that politics ain't beanbag
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/matt-gaetz-fumes-about-getting-a-last-minute-gop-primary-opponent-accuses-him-of-being-a-kevin-mccarthy-puppet/
Pedo Jeffy again posting extreme far left links here.
You've got this backwards, I believe.
People who already own homes are glad to have prices rise. What they dread most is local politicians making it easier for apartments and *plexes in single-family housing zones, lowering single-family home prices.
There is no constitutional right to ever rising home prices.
Correct. Just as there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to manage housing.
Duh. What have the Republicans done to fix that problem?
“apartments and *plexes in single-family housing zones, lowering single-family home prices.”
Actually, not. An apartment building on a piece of land is usually higher priced than a single-family home on the same land. Multiple units on a property can afford to pay higher land costs, cumulatively, than a single-family unit can pay alone. If a neighborhood is opened for multi-family development, the well-capitalized builders bid up the price of property and land in that neighborhood. Any potential decrease in property values due to increased supply or the neighborhood being less “desireable” because of multi-family is offset by big money developers bidding up the price of land and property because they can make money building on it. Any decreased price of single-family due to supply is offset also by inflation and any decrease is felt predominantly in the multi-family market..
No no no, you don't know how to speak Alphabet here. "Renters" is code for "people of low morals who are too irresponsible to save up money to buy a house and are probably on Section 8 housing vouchers".
No, renters are just people who don't own houses. I was a renter for... well... a long time. We just bought a home 5 years ago. We finally had the finances right, the down payment and the market was at a good place to enter. We weren't economically disadvantaged as much as we just weren't ready to become owners. We didn't have the finances.
There's nothing wrong with renting. It makes sense for a lot of people. Bush Jr. thought it would help the economy to get people who couldn't handle a checkbook, much less a mortgage into homes and it led to a HUGE market bubble that burst and hurt a lot of people.
Yeah, the first half of that quote doesn't make sense on multiple levels. On top of what you said, most residents don't need "research" to understand that increasing supply doesn't raise prices.
'Kennedy’s plan for government-backed mortgage bonds will do to housing what federal student loans have done to college tuition.'
But will the mortgage program deliver votes for Kennedy, like the student loan shenanigans deliver votes for Biden?
Good question. For an answer you have to ask if the pool of possible first time home buyers is larger or smaller than the pool of high student loan debt people.
Probably some voters already thinking to take the federal-backed loan, and then agitate for a forgiveness program. It worked for them on their college loan.
This nonsense killed off any small chance I'd consider voting for RFK. Chase Oliver it is...
Kennedys....always up to their old tricks!
The government program would have to limit loans to buyers of homes with a history of assessed values that have maintained a stable association to sales prices during the same time period.
Not replicating the gold rush declared by colleges after the arrival of massive student financial aid and loan programs should be a priority.
RFK's idea is good. The loss of our ownership society is diminishing the middle class and choking off economic opportunity for all.
All looter ideas are good, provided no comparisons with anything else are allowed. Both factions of Congress agree on that, so it's unanimous and settled.
"...RFK’s idea is good..."
Fuck off, slaver.
While I certainly agree that this is a dumb ass idea, the author's response is a non sequitur. He immediately leaps into a rant about multi family buildings only 5 percent of which are available to purchase. If the subject is residential mortgages the vast majority will be written for single family homes. This is just lazy writing.
Instead of Tax & Spend (while banning all energy conversion and construction) like the regular Dems, this innovator proposes to Spend & Tax while banning energy and building. It takes a scientifically alert mind to act on the intuition that subtraction and division are now commutative thanks to Conservation of Coercion! Let's see God's Girl-Bullying Beatnik-Bashers beat THAT sciency-sounding Final Solution.
All us suckers who took out a mortgage and paid it are going to be sorry when the gov't forgives the newer ones.
Really though, don't fall for RFK's anything.
He is a crazy person.