APPENDIX TO CUA TALK
by Allan Carlson
Regarding housing, we Americans have made a mess of
things, but some lessons may have been learned. The primary one is that the
goal of “decent and affordable shelter for families,” the initial Distributist
impulse, long ago ceased to be the driving force in the American housing
system. Around 1970, this system quietly but decisively shifted toward favoring
housing as a vehicle for financial investment, and consequent speculation; while
the favored recipients of aid became “unconventional” households: the unmarried
and divorced; cohabitators; and others labeled “non family” by the Census
Bureau.
What would be the proper corrections? First,
housing subsidies – be they direct or through the favored tax treatment of
mortgage interest – must be limited to one principle residence per family, and
they should be capped. Second homes, vacation homes, ‘investment’ homes, and
McMansions should receive no special encouragement.
Second, to the degree possible, government-favored
home subsidies should be made available first to young married couples with or
anticipating children.
Third, mortgage banks should be kept relatively
small and locally controlled. While the price might be slightly higher interest
rates, the gain would be more honest and responsible lending.
And fourth, borrowing a page from Chesterbelloc,
real estate contracts might be taxed “so as to discourage the sale of small
property to big proprietors and encourage the breakup of big property among
small proprietors.”
Turning to child care, the “Family Way” asks for
maximum choice. Any federal support for the institutional, non-parental care of
small children should be matched – dollar for dollar – by a tax credit (or some
equivalent) for the married couple with a full-time parent caring for small
children at home. Such an approach would avoid the anti-choice aspect of the
looming Swedish model, which has always aimed at destroying the home economy:
above all, by eliminating the full-time mother.
| 
