Reasons to shoo away the humbuggers

It's been a Scrooge of a year, wouldn't you say? Ebenezer Scrooge - whom I caught on television the other night looking a lot like the actor George C. Scott - was a man who refused to share any of his wealth with the world around him. The year 2012 bears a resemblance.

This year, we endured a divisive battle for the presidency, which was fought at times as though the only thing that mattered was how much money either side could raise. That's a sad statement for a country that stands for democracy.

Thousands were wiped out financially and emotionally by superstorm Sandy. Many innocents were lost to deranged gunmen in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn.

The economy refused to rebound, and Washington wouldn't come to agreement over anything.

And so the year 2012 was stingy like Scrooge. But in "A Christmas Carol," Charles Dickens thankfully gives us examples of two people who don't lose faith in the old miser: his long-suffering clerk Bob Cratchit and his nephew, Fred.

Cratchit raises a glass to Scrooge over the family's meager Christmas dinner - and over Mrs. Cratchit's objections. And Fred continues to invite his uncle to dine, year after year, even though the old man riddles him with insults.

We all know the end of the story. After his ghostly visitations, Scrooge accepts dinner with Fred and becomes a generous benefactor to the Cratchits. And so, neither should we close our hearts to hope for the 21st century.

Taking a wide look around, here are a few silver linings that emerged in 2012.

*Apple announced that it is bringing back some of its manufacturing to the United States. In interviews, Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, said the company would spend about $100 million on U.S. manufacturing operations in 2013.

*Several cities, including New York, are reporting declines in childhood obesity - perhaps showing that public health campaigns can be effective. Obesity is a significant factor in health care costs.

*The years-long deployment of soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in an unexpected gain for quality child care in this country. When parents began shipping out, the Department of Defense realized that there weren't enough approved, private child care slots. So the military worked with a national organization, Child Care Aware, to train and certify child care providers, greatly expanding the supply of quality programs.

*Here's another unexpected gain. During the economic downturn that began in 2008, even as people are hurting financially, they are demonstrating more compassion. The Corporation for National and Community Service reports a rise in volunteerism - exactly the opposite of what happened during hard economic times in the past.

There are many more bright spots; we see them in our personal lives every day. Let's hold a hope in our hearts for rebirth in our public life as well.

This essay was first published in Newsday.

Easy college loans could be next 'mortgage crisis'

The parallels to the mortgage lending boom pre-2007 are eerie. People are qualifying for large loans with no regard to their ability to pay. For borrowers, there's no income check, no need to verify employment, and no disclosure of how much other debt they've taken on.

Welcome to the booming field of college loans 2012. As reported earlier this month in a joint investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica and The Chronicle of Higher Education, the federal government gave out $10.6 billion last year in Parent Plus loans, which average about $11,000 per student per year. Adjusted for inflation, that's $6.3 billion more than in 2000. Just under a million families signed on for Parent Plus loans last year -- almost twice as many as in 2000.

The U.S. Department of Education, which runs this particular program, should not be in the business of knocking down families into poor credit and poverty. Yet, Parent Plus loans -- like the no-money-down mortgages of a few years back -- appear to run the risk of that very outcome.

The journalists' report tells the story of a woman making $25,000 a year in 2000 who took out $17,000 in loans for her daughter to attend NYU. Today, with fees and interest, the mother owes $33,000. Her credit has been so badly damaged that she can't qualify for a loan to send a second daughter to college. Student loan debt for Americans, as a whole, now exceeds credit card debt.

This tale of easy credit for people with little means is all the worse when you consider that one in five Parent Plus loans went to students who also received Pell Grants -- need-based financial aid for households with incomes under $50,000 that don't have to be repaid.

Is there a role for the Department of Education to tighten this lending? Should the department perform better credit checks on families? The answer to that question depends in part on your faith in the future. Lending to the parents of bright young students could give them the opportunity they need to step up the social ladder.

But there's also a gloomier prospect -- and another parallel to the mortgage disaster. The housing bubble inflated because people counted on housing prices to continue climbing skyward. With similar sunny optimism, families have been depending on graduates to emerge into careers with steadily growing paychecks.

Yes, college graduates earn 75 percent more, on average, than their peers with high school degrees. But that's if they can find a job. Some estimates say that 54 percent of recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed -- meaning, they would prefer to work more hours or could take on more responsibility.

Another problem with Parent Plus is it allows colleges to keep raising tuition and fees. The bill for bigger student centers, fancier dorms, and higher faculty and administration salaries is being shifted onto middle- and working-class families. Colleges often steer families toward Parent Plus loans -- some include the loans in financial aid award letters -- when the colleges could be giving students a break on tuition.

Surely, colleges believe that families will safeguard their finances and forgo a loan that puts them at risk of defaulting. But is that asking too much of parents, who may be excited about an acceptance from a child's dream school? Pride and easy credit are a dangerous combination. I wouldn't want to deny a child the chance at an education that might mean everything to his or her future. Upward mobility is hard enough in this country -- and getting tougher all the time.

Yet the Department of Education and colleges need to close this lending spigot. Strict lending rules aren't punitive. They're just good sense.

This essay was first published in Newsday.

Election 2012: Don't let the banks off easy

“Can Obama lose this election?" a friend asked the other day. It's something supporters of the president are well within reason to ask these days, given the widespread economic misery that has opened a big double doorway to that possibility. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll released last week, 54 percent see the current troubles as the beginning of a long-term national decline, not simply a trough for the U.S. economy that will give way to prosperity soon.

And so with a race that could tilt either way, Americans are obsessed with who's ahead in the Republican pack, and President Barack Obama's sympathizers gleefully chalk up the gaffes: restaurant executive Herman Cain's groping allegations, Texas Gov. Rick Perry's forgotten list of federal agencies to shutter, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's shifting stance on health care.

But the president will be missing a crucial responsibility over the next 11-plus months if he allows the Democratic Party's message to center on the horrors of the Republican roster. That responsibility is this: to reassure Americans that there's a candidate in the race who can't be bought and sold on Wall Street.

According to that same Journal/NBC poll, three out of four people say the nation's economic structure favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of us. That's an incredibly skewed perception of the basic fairness and merit-based achievement that are supposed to underlie our democracy. We aren't Dubai or Panama, are we?

No wonder half of those responding to the poll say they identify with one of this country's polar extremes: the tea party or Occupy Wall Street.

But beyond a broad disaffection fueled by high unemployment and underwater mortgages, the perceptions of poll respondents were specific to Obama as well: About three-quarters said the president has fallen short of his promises to improve oversight of the banks and Wall Street.

That's why the Obama administration's position is confounding on a proposed national settlement between big banks and federal and state officials over mortgage abuses. Attorneys general around the country are examining foreclosures made, perhaps illegally, through a hasty process known as "robo-signing." The president's people are said to be pushing for a $28-billion agreement - while a few outlier attorneys general are resisting: Eric Schneiderman here in New York, Kamala Harris in California and Beau Biden in Delaware.

Let's face it: $28 billion is a puny sum compared with the harm caused. To put it in perspective, negative equity in the housing market tops $700 billion. The government shouldn't give bankers immunity from legal liability - perhaps for any sum - but certainly not for so little, and not before a thorough investigation of banks' role in the near-meltdown of the global financial system.

In the past, a little salve on the wound - $28 billion in mortgage forgiveness, refinancing, credit counseling and legal services - might have been a very smart election-year gambit. But the economic pain and resentment of the last three years is too deep, and the Internet has made the public better informed. Reacting to news about the possible bank settlement, the Occupy Wall Street folks hoisted a sign reading, "Obama, don't be Wall Street's puppet."

Perhaps the president has good reasons for urging this settlement with the banks. If he does, he should take his case to the public. Because there's a lot more at stake than which party takes the White House. We could lose our faith that our government works for most of the people, most of the time.

First published in Newsday.

Mortgage schemers' luck runs out

Mortgage fraud arrests have begun showing up with great regularity on Long Island. Fourteen people were charged last week with stealing $58 million in a fraud ring that involved more than 100 homes. Another 14, in a separate case brought by the Nassau County district attorney, are facing trial in October.

And there are reports of arranged sales on the rise -- cases where a homeowner falsifies a sale, effectively forcing the bank to reduce the mortgage on a home. That may sound like justice for a home that's lost value, but it's illegal, and it unfairly spreads the loss to the bank's other customers.

Why all this fraud in the news? Well, it turns out that Long Island is a hotbed for such schemes. The U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network says that Nassau had the fifth-highest number of suspicious reports of mortgage fraud per capita, among counties nationwide, in the third quarter of last year.

It's fascinating how people can think of different ways to make a quick, illegal buck. The convenience store robbery just doesn't compare for intrigue -- where's the imagination?

White-collar crime often involves people who had legitimate skills but at some point recognized an opportunity to cash in. In the case brought by Nassau DA Kathleen Rice in March, accused ringleaders James R. Sweet and Dwayne Benjamin were paying acquaintances $10,000 to pose as home buyers, and telling them that they were going to fix up the home and "flip" it. They portrayed it as an investment partnership.

So, the phony buyer took out a mortgage some $30,000 to $40,000 over the sale price, Rice said. The ringleaders allegedly paid off the "buyer" and pocketed the difference. There was no longer a homeowner to make payments on the house, leaving the bank to foreclose.

You can see that when home prices are rising, banks wouldn't be as unnerved by this scheme. But their sense of injury is high today. "For it to be fraud, somebody has to be damaged in some way," says Abigail Margulies, chief of the Crimes Against Real Estate unit in Rice's office, which was formed in late 2008.

Sweet and Benjamin allegedly became more brazen, eventually having people impersonate both the buyer and the seller, and swindling the bank out of the entire loan amount -- six times in one six-month period.

That's a lot of greed. More sympathetic, but just as illegal, are the homeowners whose mortgages are higher than the value of the home -- so-called underwater loans. They intentionally default on the loan and convince the lender to take less than is owed in a "short sale." In reality, the homeowner has arranged beforehand to "sell" the home to a friend for a lower price, and then continue to live in it.

The homeowner is sticking it to the bank that wouldn't renegotiate the loan. You can see how someone could justify that in their mind: "Why am I paying $4,000 a month to live in this home, when if I sold it, the new buyer could pay $1,300?"

A sense of injury runs high, and people feel they no longer need to play by the rules. Some people just walk away from underwater homes.

We'll be reading about more cases soon, says Margulies. Fraud takes a while to recognize and document. The charges being brought now are for crimes that occurred four or five years ago -- back before the 2008 crash, when there were loosey-goosey mortgage application rules about documenting employment or income.

Apparently, making loans to people who couldn't afford them was only part of the problem that led to the crash. Those loose practices also schooled would-be defrauders in how to game the system.

First published in Newsday

Bring competition to credit rating business

Official Washington was seized again yesterday by its preoccupation with the debt ceiling. But in a nearby hearing room, little noticed, the nation's opportunity to reform a key villain of the world financial meltdown was stealing away.

Credit ratings agencies, which stamped "AAA" on mortgage-backed securities that we now know were riddled with risk, are having their rules of operation discussed and rewritten through a comment period that closes on Aug. 8.

The condensed nature of this industry -- coiled into a small oligopoly of three: Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch -- created the systemic risk that nearly cratered the world economy three years ago. Greater competition among credit raters would broaden the tools investors use to make decisions, and would add security to the financial markets. But it's not clear that's where we're headed.

The financial services reform legislation, Dodd-Frank, celebrated its first anniversary this month. One thing it requires is that the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission remove references to credit ratings agencies from their regulations and replace them with better standards for judging credit risk.

Those efforts were on display yesterday, at a hearing of the oversight subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee. Executives from Standard & Poor's and Moody's testified. They appear prepared to accept a new operating regime, but that may be because the rules regulators are considering "create a protective barrier around the incumbent ratings agencies and . . . make them even more central to and important for the bond markets of the future."

That was a concern raised by Lawrence J. White, an economics professor from the Stern School of Business at New York University. He recommended to the subcommittee that regulators move away from allowing banks and other institutions to outsource safety judgments to credit ratings agencies. Instead, institutions should be made to justify to regulators that their investments are safe and appropriate.

White is right to shift the burden of accountability -- but I don't care to see it rest so heavily with regulators alone. Think how many times Bernie Madoff was reported to the SEC, without effect.

Fostering competition is a good and necessary tandem approach. It's how we will evolve from the systemic risks of the last decade, to individuals placing investment bets using diverse information and resources. Individuals may guess badly, but their mistakes don't metastasize to an entire industry.

James H. Gellert, chief executive of Manhattan-based Rapid Ratings International, which seeks to knock the crown off the Big Three, compared this technological moment in the credit ratings industry to the change from typewriters to computers or from whale oil to petroleum.

Gellert and the chairman of an emerging ratings firm that bears his name, Jules B. Kroll, testified that Dodd-Frank doesn't do much to promote competition, and depending on how the SEC implements the rules, could actually quash the ability of smaller competitors to offer an alternative.

Kroll stated that the cost of compliance with the new rules is "a disincentive to entering the industry."

While the debt ceiling debate continues to crowd aside other topics, it's worth noting that credit ratings agencies are the very entities that hold the power to downgrade the U.S. Treasury debt -- or tip Greece into the "default" category.

It's important that we find a room on the center stage of our attention for three companies with that much power.

First published in Newsday

Lobbyists hover over Wall Street rules changes

For those of us who wonder whether Washington can erect sufficient safeguards against a future global financial meltdown, the news this week is hopeful.

The Center for Responsive Politics, an organization that tracks spending by big lobbying groups, says that Wall Street and the financial industry spent more trying to influence Washington in the first three months of 2011 than during the same period last year.

Maybe that doesn't sound like a good sign, but where there's cash, there's agita. The $27 million shelled out this year by banks, credit unions, investment firms and their trade groups signals concern that the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 -- also known as Dodd-Frank -- will be strict.

Lobbying is up 2.7 percent, which is remarkable considering how much lobbying was going on last year, when the bill was in the heat of a Congressional debate. Lobbyists' focus has shifted to the regulatory agencies drafting the details -- expected to stretch to 5,000 pages by the time the law takes effect in July.

As the pressure mounts in the next few weeks, Americans should keep a careful watch over the process. This is an industry with a particularly strong influence -- and one that hasn't paid much of a price for the damage it's caused. The industry's intensified lobbying effort doesn't hint at a Wall Street that's chastened. Quite the opposite.

Michigan Democrat Sen. Carl Levin has just produced a report saying that Goldman Sachs executives may have misled Congress about the company's mortgage stock bets at the expense of the firm's clients. Yet the report has sparked little outcry -- save for that of hypercritic former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, now a CNN pundit, who said that Attorney General Eric Holder should resign if he does not pursue criminal charges against Goldman.

For most of Washington, though, it appears sometimes that "saving" the financial industry is more important than equal treatment under the law.

"We're going through Dodd-Frank literally line by line," said Rep. Michael Grimm (R-Staten Island), a freshman who campaigned on now-distant tea party promises to slash government spending and stop economic bailout efforts. "We don't want to be a burden on a sector that quite frankly is extremely important," he said.

Grimm is a member of the House Financial Services Committee, which is considering an industry-friendly bill that would delay implementation of rules on derivatives trading -- that wellspring of toxic assets that were so instrumental in the 2008 housing market crash.

Another bill would water down the structure of the nascent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, replacing a single director with a five-person commission. The commission would include a maximum of three from each political party. Hello, gridlock.

The most pitched battle is over a cap on debit card swipe fees, a business that ballooned to $16.2 billion in 2009 as people have come to rely on plastic for everyday purchases. Banks and credit card companies charge retailers a fee every time someone uses a debit or prepaid card, and businesses pass those costs on to consumers through generally higher prices. All in all, it has a depressing effect on an already sluggish economy.

The average debit card transaction costs only about 4 cents to process, yet banks, MasterCard and Visa charge store owners about 44 cents per transaction. Regulators recommend a 12-cent maximum fee, which they believe is "reasonable and proportional" to the actual cost.

But reasonable and proportional may be alien concepts for people who are spending $9 million a month in campaign money, constituent visits, endorsement letters and media campaigns in legislators' home districts. Brazen -- now that's more like it.

First published in Newsday

Home-sharing's time returns

Pushed along by those twins of the Great Recession -- unemployment and foreclosure -- America may be moving back under the multigenerational roof.

At a recent reunion of high school friends, I talked to one who had returned to her mother's house, along with her brother and sister. The whole family was back together again, this time with grandchildren added to the mix. It was a disaster. The siblings were fighting as much as they had in high school.

Another friend's son was enlisting in the Army to avoid moving back into her home after graduation. The Census Bureau says that 54 million Americans were living in multigenerational families in 2010, up from 49 million two years earlier. That's the highest count since 1968.

Of course, it's nothing new for large extended families to live under one roof. In many parts of the world, it's the norm. In this country, Asians and Hispanics have higher rates of multigenerational living, perhaps reflecting greater cultural acceptance.

But for the most part, since the 1950s, the American middle class has assumed that one is up and out at 18. Each nuclear family, according to this standard, had its own home.

And that attitude can make moving back in together -- or "doubling up" in demographers' terms -- feel like a step backward. It can be a sign of financial desperation, a response to unemployment, lack of child care or health care, or affordable rents.

But there are many advantages that generations can offer one another: care-taking for the young or old, emotional support and the sharing of life lessons. Those benefits -- as well as the financial considerations -- are what led the Huntington-based Family Service League, a social services agency, to create its HomeShare program, which matches older adults with someone who could use their spare bedroom.

Artist Milton Colón, 47, heard about the program through Fountainhead Church in East Northport. He is sharing the Smithtown home of Meinhard and Aino Joks, who are 86 and 85. Colón does the laundry, cooking, bed-making and errands, allowing the Jokses to stay in their home even though their home health care benefits have run out.

In turn, the Jokses have given him shelter and stability. Colón's wife of 22 years died in 2008, of an accidental overdose, and he fell apart. He began living out of his car.

While she was alive, Colón had made a living painting portraits. He was as busy as he wanted to be -- before the recession drained his Brentwood business of customers.

The Jokses are from Estonia and Finland and tell him stories of their emigration after World War II. "I'm a World War II history buff," Colón says. "So, that's something we share. I love history. I could take it in all day."

In the evenings, he works at a basement desk on a comic strip that he's developing. It's about a proud Puerto Rican father named Flores who moves his family from Brooklyn to the suburbs -- "Flowers in Blue," Colón's own story. His new home with the Jokses not only tethers him back to family life, it gives him an artist's freedom from financial worries.

That's the facet of multigenerational living that is not often expressed. We all know about the tensions and bickering -- the fall from the ideal after having somehow slipped off the path to the single-family home. But there is sweetness, too.

So why not make the best of what, for some, has become the new American reality? With 8.8 percent unemployment and 2.36 million homes foreclosed by banks between 2007 and 2010, the middle class is struggling. Independent living may be an American value, but so is helping each other through hard times.

First published in Newsday

Government programs have failed to stem foreclosures

Even as news reports offer hope of economic recovery, the figures on home foreclosures remain stuck in a recessionary winter. When the books close on 2010, banks will have repossessed a record 1.2 million U.S. homes, up 33 percent from 2009.

On Long Island, we ranked a dreadful second in a new measure published last month: Given the current rate of home sales, it would take 30.4 months to sell all the foreclosed and "distressed" properties here. Only Miami has a larger, slower-moving inventory.

The housing crisis is entering its fourth year, yet people are still losing their homes at a disastrous rate. In Nassau and Suffolk counties, 893 new foreclosure cases were opened in November alone. Despite a series of programs intended to prevent foreclosures, lenders and the federal government have failed.

A congressional panel overseeing the federal programs admitted as much earlier this month. The marquee initiative, the Home Affordable Modification Program, will end up preventing only 800,000 foreclosures, at a maximum, vastly fewer than the 3 million to 4 million it initially aimed to stop. Even more worrisome: This is the third foreclosure prevention effort launched by the federal government since 2007, and the fourth overall. The first was initiated by the mortgage writers themselves - an early washout.

The fundamental flaw in every case is relying on lenders to voluntarily reduce a borrower's monthly payments to affordable levels. One would think that keeping the mortgage checks coming would be in lenders' interests. By foreclosing on a home, they recover only a fraction of the value of the loan.

But apparently there are financial incentives working in the opposite direction. In our system of bundled, resold mortgages, the companies that service the loans can sometimes make more money by charging fees throughout the foreclosure process.

One way around this would be to make loan modifications mandatory. The House voted in 2009 to give bankruptcy court judges the power to reduce mortgages so that people could afford to stay in their homes. Regrettably, the Senate refused to pass this measure. It should be reintroduced.

The government's half-steps to date reflect an unwillingness to "reward" people who foolishly signed up for mortgages they couldn't afford. But many who are struggling have fallen on hard times for unforeseen reasons, often because of job loss. It's a Catch-22 that some people could relocate for new jobs - if only they could sell their homes in this terrible market.

To be sure, it would be better if the housing market recovered and the value of people's homes came back. Some believe the quickest route is to allow the foreclosures to proceed. But blaming homeowners ignores the culpability of lenders, who duped many buyers with teaser rates, balloon payments and outright lies about the loan terms - to say nothing of recent revelations that lenders couldn't produce paperwork to prove they hold the loans. Bankruptcy court judges should be given discretion on whether a lender acted in bad faith.

A new law taking effect Jan. 22 in New York will allow bankruptcy filers to retain up to $150,000 in home equity, or $300,000 for a couple, potentially allowing many to keep their homes. Time will tell if this will be adequate.

It's striking that during the 1930s, the most recent era when U.S. home prices fell so dramatically, President Franklin D. Roosevelt made not only a practical argument to save homes, but a moral plea: The "broad interests of the nation require that specific safeguards should be thrown around home ownership as a guarantee of social and economic stability."

It's time we made this commitment to stability too.

Originally published in Newsday

Washington's still betting the bank on Trickle Down theory

I've been feeling a little Francis Fukuyama these days, feeling like I'm at the end of history. How can I complain about job loss -- even repeated job loss -- when people are losing their homes to foreclosure? People say that buyers should have been more wary and not jumped into subprime loans. I don't buy it. I think people were steered into these nasty loans. I heard last week that 20% of people in subprime loans would have qualified for regular mortgages. So, why steer them into a loan that balloons in 2 or 3 or 5 years, making the monthly payments skyrocket? Money, money, money. These mortgage brokers were out to serve themselves.

It shocks me that we, as a nation, are debating rescuing the enriched firms that caused this mess without also requiring that homeowners be helped.

I mean, here's the logic I keep returning to. If it's the bad loans -- the unpayable mortgages -- that are wrecking the balance sheets of the Lehman Brothers and AIGs of the world, then shouldn't we be trying to make sure those defaults stop happening? My logic doesn't penetrate the Trickle-Down types in charge, though. Here is Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's reasoning on how the panic will stop (via New York Times columnist Paul Krugman):

When he finally deigned to offer an explanation of his plan, Mr. Paulson argued that he could solve this problem through “price discovery” — that once taxpayer funds had created a market for mortgage-related toxic waste, everyone would realize that the toxic waste is actually worth much more than it currently sells for, solving the capital problem.

I've also heard the same explanation, essentially, in easier-to-understand terms. Paulson and the other rescue warriors believe that once the bankers feel it's safe to begin lending money again, potential home buyers will get the loans they need. They'll buy homes, prices will begin to rise again, the abandoned homes will be re-inhabited, and everyone will be happy. The reassurance that Washington is offering to bankers will have Trickled Down to us little people.

But it's beyond me how people can keep supporting Trickle Down when it so clearly has done nothing good for our economy since Ronald Reagan ran on it in 1980. Where are the results? And if it's not working, then why not help homeowners who are facing foreclosure directly?

Individuals are the last ones holding the bag

One of the most insightful comments on the U.S. Treasury bailout of the banks came from a recent "Doonesbury" cartoon. One character notes that America is privatizing wealth and nationalizing risk. In other words, people at the top are extracting riches from the financial system, while the taxpayers hold a safety net under those same institutions when they fail. They're "too big to fail," right? These days, I feel that we middle class householders are too little to succeed. I look at my 401(k) and college savings plans with real dread after last week's stock market plummet. The trend has all been toward handing us more risk for our own financial futures.

A story today from the Associated Press explains that college savings funds -- the New York State 529 plans -- have been hit by the recent whallop on Wall Street. Over the past two decades, secure company pension plans have mostly been replaced by 401(k) retirement savings -- which have also ridden the ups and mostly downs of the stock market. If President George W. Bush had had his way in 2005, the nation would have privatized Social Security as well.

Imagine tens of thousands of people waiting until the stock market recovers so they can retire, because both their 401(k) plans and privatized Social Security benefits were bottoming out with a bear market. As former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich argues in his book "Supercapitalism," in the past 40 years or so, we have gone from a nation of beneficiaries to a nation of investors. And we have taken on all the risk that implies.

Now, if only Americans can figure out a way to time college readiness, aging and death to coincide with the appropriate phase of the market, this investor nation idea just might work. (Insert sarcastic tone here.)

This timing thing matters a lot to the middle class, which has very little cushion. But surely it matters far less to people who are rich enough to be insulated from market swings. This is how politicians lose touch with middle-class reality -- they become rich. Mr. Bush and the people around him are far out of touch.