Nothing better to do?

I'm actually asking Congress; not you.

Apparently they're holding another hearing about steroids. (HT: Dan Shanoff)

I've seen an argument that this is actually a good thing. If they're spending their time sticking their noses in something as inconsequential as professional sports, that's less time to pass regulations, spend my money, and generally continue to foul things up.

For example, from the NYTimes (via The Economist):

"Prodded in part by some of the nation’s biggest banks, the Bush administration and Congress are considering costly new proposals for the government to rescue hundreds of thousands of homeowners whose mortgages are higher than the value of their houses."

They're talking about negative equity. I have a hard time with this. People know that home buying can be risky, but they do it because they need a place to live.

First of all, the people who would even have negative equity either 1) just bought their homes or 2) have been in the home for awhile and refinanced to cash out on the equity. Further, the only people who really care that they have negative equity are those who see their homes as a short-term investment (they are planning on selling over the short term rather than the long term).

This is why I have a problem with the government doing anything to help out those with negative equity in their homes. If they just bought the home and are now concerned because they can't sell it for enough to pay off the note, that means they are (probably) investors who planned on trying to flip it for a quik profit. Why should we bail them out of a ill-timed investment decision? If they have been in the house for a few years and refinanced to cash out, they borrowed against paper equity to fund consumer expenses (vacations, cars, etc). Why should we bail them out to subsidize their spending habits? If someone doesn't fall into either of these categories and they have negative equity, they will most likely just keep paying their mortgage until the value of the house goes back up and they've built more equity through their monthly payments.

But the funny thing about the story is that officials are adamently against "any taxpayer bailout for either people who borrowed more than they could afford or banks that made foolish loans." How will they determine that? I think that will be a somewhat arbitrary measure that will require someone making the decision that because you only borrowed, say, 3 times yours income you deserve help while someone else who borrowed 3.1 times their income doesn't. It's just asking for trouble.