When the GOP’s ideology runs into GOP’s political interests

The Republican response to the mortgage crisis has been, shall we say, a bit of a joke. John McCain has led the way for the party with a plan that is both ineffective and surprisingly callous.

The real core of his speech was his argument against government action to help dig distressed homeowners — or the country — out of the mortgage mess…. His suggestion that federal aid might wrongly reward “undeserving” homeowners sounded both mean-spirited and economically naive. And then there is the double standard. He seemed less concerned about the government helping reckless bankers, endorsing its role in preventing the bankruptcy of Bear Stearns.

No one has ever proposed helping real estate speculators. And the senator’s language obscures the reality that most troubled homeowners did not get into trouble by themselves. Lenders, aided and abetted by bankers and do-nothing regulators, lured many borrowers into overly complex, ultimately unaffordable loans. Mr. McCain also failed to grasp that the foreclosure problem has gone far beyond the issue of the deserving and undeserving. What is on the line now is the health of the economy, including the viability of the financial system: Helping troubled borrowers stay in their homes would help the banks by reducing defaults and foreclosures.

The question now is not whether the government should intervene, but how.

As it turns out, the Republican Party line on the crisis is very much in line with its presidential candidate. That wouldn’t be especially noteworthy, except GOP lawmakers are talking to their constituents, who, interestingly enough, don’t much care for the party’s do-nothing-and-see-what-happens approach to the problem.

“The government should help,” said Mr. Carpio, 57, a former truck driver whose wife is a security guard. “Somebody ought to do something.”

In Mr. Carpio’s view, that somebody could be Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart, an eight-term Republican who represents Hialeah and whose district slices through Miami-Dade into Broward, two counties in the top 10 of foreclosures nationwide.

But as Congress returns from a two-week recess on Monday for a furious debate over whether to help homeowners on the brink of default, Mr. Diaz-Balart is caught in a crunch of his own.

On one side, Democrats emboldened by the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the collapse of Bear Stearns are demanding help for “everyday Americans.” On the other, Republicans including Senator John McCain, the party’s presumptive nominee, are urging restraint, reluctant to commit taxpayer funds to what they say is simply a bailout for greedy lenders and reckless buyers.

It is a bind shared by other Republicans, especially from high-foreclosure states like Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada and Ohio. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has a list of 18 districts where it plans to highlight high foreclosure rates in its effort to oust Republican incumbents this year.

Hmm, Republican policies about doing nothing, all in the name of limited government, apparently isn’t a big selling point to voters who are losing their homes in a nationwide mortgage crisis. Who would have guessed?

So Mr. Diaz-Balart is treading carefully even as some of his constituents angrily insist that he should be leading the charge for help on Capitol Hill. He says he is open to some of the Democrats’ ideas but has not decided how he will vote on a proposed $300 billion loan guarantee program to prevent foreclosures and an array of other housing initiatives expected on the House floor in the next few weeks.

“I haven’t studied this sufficiently to commit right now,” Mr. Diaz-Balart said in an interview outside Epworth Village, a retirement community where he spoke to constituents about how to get their payments from the economic stimulus plan approved by Congress last month.

“It’s a very serious problem, and I am not dogmatic,” he said. “I am not going to say there cannot be state intervention in a dogmatic way.”

For constituents like Mr. Carpio, that is not enough. “I’m very lukewarm about him nowadays,” said Mr. Carpio, who like his congressman is a lifelong Republican of Cuban heritage.

Others were less subtle. “He says a lot of about foreign policy, mainly toward Cuba, which makes no difference here,” said David Carbonell, a former computer programmer and gas station manager now on disability with a heart ailment. “You have people living here at the edge of poverty and he has done nothing to bring anything back to Hialeah or Miami Lakes. He is a party hack. He will vote the way his party votes.”

Toe the party line and embrace conservative orthodoxy, or help constituents who are hurting in the midst of a mortgage meltdown. It can’t be easy to be a congressional Republican right now.

Great post. In crass political terms, this is win-win for the Dems — if this goes through, the Democratic Congress gets the credit; if it fails on a party line vote, it becomes a top campaign issue.

  • I for one don’t buy the “poor victimized homeowners who were tricked into unaffordable mortages” line. I think it is insulting on the one hand and largely untrue on the other. I know people who are in serious mortgage trouble, and without exception they got in with their eyes open, and had things gone differently they would be celebrating their newfound wealth and telling everyone how smart they were to go interest-only and zero-down. In the sense of fairness, whatever that means, bailing them out makes no sense.

    However, I also realize that it is in my best interest to not have the housing market completely collapse, and that there are times when the nebulous concept of fairness needs to take a backseat to economic and social reality.

    And that’s where McCain is going to get eaten alive. There is no argument for bailing out Bear Stearns that doesn’t apply to individual homeowners, and any attempt to frame a corporate bailout in the face of letting individuals hang is going to backfire, big time.

  • I think the callous nature of the vast majority of goopers is going to be the final nail in their coffins. Especially when you look at the gleeful bailout of BS and the screw you attitude of the average person.

    The time is going to come when the rantings of the Rush O’Hannity’s of the world will smack the face of the people they are talking to because the little guy reality is not the reality of those mouthpieces who make millions.

    In time, it is WE who will say; Let THEM eat cake! And I will no more mourn the loss of these jerks – all gooper jerks – as I would the town bully who finally gets the major smack down that they so richly deserve.

  • Does this mean we’re going to watch another Katrina, this time economic?

    Here we are again where the collective lack of empathy is coming back to bite the Repubs in the ass. Again. TR has a very good point and it would be in the best interest for the Dems to exploit it, to show that despite what Nadir sez, there are some fundamental differences between the two parites.

    The Repubs have used vaguely populist language to get what their donors wanted. Deregulation. Rebuilding of oligarchies and monopolies. All in the name of “protecting the consumer” and “increasing choice.” Yet, it didn’t work out so well. Like Healthcare insurance. Or telecommunications. Or banking. Or electricity. Or consumer products. Etc adnausem.

    If the regular folks figure out what listing to the limited gov types have cost them, the Grover Norquist types will probably be as irrelevant to political discourse as the communist parties in most of the world have become.

  • When you have a political party whose motto is “I Got Mine, Fuck You,” this sort of outcome is inevitable.

  • You know the funny thing, now that housing prices have crashed, most of these ‘foolish borrowers’ could afford the houses they are living in. They just can’t afford the mortgages for the house prices they had to pay when speculators were running up the prices on the houses they thought they could buy.

    So yes, let’s not help out the speculators, but for the families that want to stay in the home and can afford a mortgage that would cover the value of the home NOW, the Federal Government should help restructure those mortgages.

  • Now is the perfect time to hit the GOPer with his favorite smear-word—but instead of “welfare,” let’s call it by a name defining exactly what it is:

    WEALTHFARE

    Can you say “wealthfare,” boys and girls? Good.

    I knew you could.

    Now add the spelling to your computer dictionaries, so it doesn’t get red-lined or corrected.
    *
    WEALTHFARE
    *
    WEALTHFARE
    *
    WEALTHFARE

  • “surprisingly callous”

    Really? You still find the GOP’s standard of callous indifference to be surprising? I stopped being surprised by it back in high school. The party is controlled by rich, white fat cats who have never in their lives cared about anyone but themselves.

  • Steve (#7) – careful throwing that Wealthfare term around. The RNC run to the fainting couch and will call for all of us to disown you and apologize profusely.

    E Coli Conservatism – a new strain: the credit markets. Coming soon to a lender and their borrowers near (but hopefully not too near) you.

  • As someone around here once wrote: “I’ll never be mean enough or rich enough to vote Republican”.

    This certainly underscores that.

  • The Repubs have been very successful at convincing people to vote Repub and then $crewing them.

    Once again a small guideline for all of us – if you are not ultra rich, you have no business voting Repub. (And those of you that are upside down in home loans, or up to you eyeballs in debt are NOT ultra rich so get over it.)

  • It’s definitely time to start calling McCain “Hoover” anytime you mention him re: the economy.

  • It’s definitely time to start calling McCain “Hoover” anytime you mention him re: the economy.

    He’s about the same age Hoover would be if he were still alive.

  • Deregulation=date rape.

    They’ve sold deregulation as a boon to the middle class. What it really means is that the corporatocracy can now screw them sideways and get away with it.

    Does nobody remember how California “deregulated” the energy markets in 2000 and was then robbed by Enron and Co. to the tune of $9 billion?

  • It’s too bad that mortgage relief can’t be tied restricted to active voters who are also registered Democrats. (/snark).

    The best solution here isn’t obvious, at least to me. Even though I made the right decisions with regard to mortgages, it is not in my interest to have hordes of people losing their homes all around me, so some sort of bail-out seems both logical and compassionate. However, bailing out the borrowers and the lenders with no further penalties or controls just ensures more of the same or worse in the future. Prohibiting variable rate mortgages and balloon mortgages is not the solution either, as both have legitimate purposes. Should we require mortgage insurance on low-quality risky loans? Can anyone recommend some good links on this topic?

  • But the alternative question is how can the federal government heavily regulate the housing industry without severely harming the entire housing market? When it is becoming very hard to sell a house, does it make sense to increase the regulation so that fewer people will be able to purchase a house and that most mortgage companies will not be able to exist. Look at what happen in Montgomery Country Maryland when the progressive there propose new mortgage regulations.

    Also, why reward the people who purchase too much house by raising the taxes of those who were responsbile in their home purchase?

  • Everyone should do his/her own research about
    9/11.

    WTC-7 has small, scattered fires, yet implodes in
    a controlled demolition. Silverstein says it was
    pulled.

    Airliner with a 125′ wingspan disappears though a
    16′ foot initial impact hole at the Pentagon.

    All clear video of what blew-up the Pentagon being
    withheld to this day.

    NORAD stands down due to Cheney, I mean Osama
    & 19 flunkies with boxcutters.

    Etc., etc., etc.,

  • I hope MoveOn runs a commercial with some authentic homeowners who are in deep trouble because of the mortgage crisis. (No speculators allowed, no 2nd/3rd home owners allowed – only primary residence home owners)

    Have each one of them look into the camera and ask McCain the following question, while standing in front of their own home:

    “Senator McCain, This is my primary residence. I can no longer afford the higher mortgage payment. The value of my house is now $xx less than when I bought it. Do you think that I’m a deserving home owner?”

  • I know it could never politically happen, but I think it would be a great idea to have a mortgage bailout that excludes registered Republicans and Libertarians. Make them ineligible, everyone knows they are against government handouts so we certainly wouldn’t want to violate their precious values by including them. Maybe someone like Kucinich with nothing to lose could at least introduce a bill with that language and get FoxNews, Rush and the rest outraged enough to talk about it.

  • Bruno,

    Most of those people made a bet that the housing market would keep going up. That is what they financed 100% using two mortgages. The real question is why should people who made real down payments and financed using fixed rate mortages be expected to pay more taxes and higher fees because they were rational?

    The Washington Post has tried to humanize the story but the question is why were 60 y/o people buying homes with ARM mortgages?

  • I actually do have some reservations about bailouts for even the most innocent of homeowners who are now underwater. Lets say they provide financial assistance for those who (a) now have negative equity, so they can avoid foreclosure and (b) those who cannot pay the adjusted rate on their ARM so they avoid default (and ultimately foreclosure). And lets say there is a moratorium on foreclosures for a certain window.

    Why wouldn’t I just stop paying my mortgage and earn the interest and then catch up once the moratorium expires? I took a fixed, rather than an ARM, because my risk tolerance on such a large investment is lower than that of many others. If you bail out the ARM buyers, they will have had the benefit of paying less than I did while the economy was good, but now get the same deal I have when the economy is bad — when do I get back that extra margin I paid for the last several years? I am nowhere near default, but when I go to buy my next home, my interest rate will be higher because of those who did – particularly if the banks have to run underwater on properties where foreclosure is forbidden by fiat.

    I understand I am fortunate and should count my own blessings rather than begrudging those who need assistance, and I know that allowing collapse of the system harms everyone even worse, so supporting bailouts is a form of enlightened self-interest. Still, it feels like I’m a chump for playing conservatively and by the rules all along.

    At the very very least, before wild speculators like BS get bailed out, and overextended homeowners get bailed out (1) steps should be taken to either reward or at least protect from harm those of us who did not contribute to the problem and (2) make tough fixes in the system to ensure that this unfair dilemma cannot happen again, at the bank level or the individual level. That would make the cost of the bailout more palatable.

  • superdestroyer….

    I’m not advocating bailing everybody out. I would like some of those home owners to ask McCain that question and see him sweat.

    I don’t think anybody should get a hand out, but I do believe that a lot of people fell for the Republican gimmicks while proclaiming the American dream of home ownership. Does anybody remember Bush mentioning it in a few of his State of the Union addresses, when the real estate market was booming?

    It’s because of Republican deregulation we are in this mess. I”m with Shalimar and make it that no Liberterian or Republican can qualify for ‘any’ government assistance. They’d have to prove that they’ve been registered as a Democrat or Independent for at least 5 years.

    It’s amazing how many regular people will reflexively vote Republican and at the same time expect their politicians to bring the pork home to them, not to mention other hand outs.

    A perfect example here in Oregon is where East of the Cascades the Republicans have a pretty good strong hold. You should’ve see the outrage when the “Timber assistance program” didn’t get extended (thanks to the Bush administration) At no time did they question their ‘Republican’ representatives about why they believe in ‘small government’ while at the same time expecting the Federal government to keep doling out tax dollars to help them with their local budgets. After all, they can’t raise taxes within their own district. It’s the government that is expected to give that money, not their own district.

    I’m sure there are a lot of Republicans who are in trouble with their mortgages, yet this coming November they’ll vote Republican again, without questioning that it’s their very own party that created this mess.

    The vast majority of Republican voters will continue voting against their own best interest. Lemmings comes to mind. See the example of the Florida Republican having to listen to his Republican constituents complaining about the mess.

    Enough said about it.

  • tough call @ 24, the “moral hazard” threshold was crossed with the Bear-Stearns bail out. As Paul Krugman has noted, the question isn’t whether there will be a bail out, but what it will look like. I might add to that, who it will help. Something that helps home owners stay in their homes would be a greater good than a measure that helps the investment bankers, but does nothing for the average shmoe with an ARM and a submerged equity position.

  • Bruno,

    If you want to assign government programs by political affiliation, then only the children of Democrats or independents should be bussed to inner city schools. Or maybe Republican students should be admitted to college based upon merit but Democrats should be admitted to college base upon social engineering concerns. Now do you realize how foolish your idea sounds.

    You are still proposing a bailout of the foolish while punishing the frugal just like tough call pointed out. Besides, the banks were deregulated during the Clinton administration so it was as much a Democratic problem as a Republican problem. You should look up what happened in Montgomery County Maryland when mortgage regulations were proposed. Every mortgage company threatened to leave the county because the risk would be too high to keep going business in the county.

    What do you think will happen if the government starts insisting on 20% down, 30 year fixed rate mortgages for everyone?

  • In addition to the two articles in yesterday’s NYT that CB mentions in his posting (and the one about Repub representatives getting smacked by *Repub* constituents is a real pleasure to read), there was this one, which I found even more fascinating:

    http://tinyurl.com/2kjdzn

    There’s definitely more to the story than just greedy speculators. There are plenty of people, who simply wanted the American Dream of owning a home and who got screwed one way or another. And not just by the big banks, either. And they’re *still* getting screwed.

    Regarding the Bear Stearns bail-out… You figure that’s gonna be the only one, when all’s said and done? Somehow I doubt it. Meanwhile, the Treasury Dept is doing what all Bush Departments are doing — saying that they have a plan, which is to let those trustworthy stalwart recipients of the Wealthfare (thanks, Steve @7!) police themselves. Just don’t let the Congress regulate their conduct…

  • There must be *some* regulation and safe-guards. Unfettered capitalism always ends up being the law of the jungle, and that is the exact opposite philosophy of any working society. If we’re going to be reduced to a mob of individuals in which only the strongest (i.e. the wealthiest) survive, then why live in a society at all? Each of us is responsible for all of us; that’s the only way any society can survive.

    That’s the main reason why the modern GOP is an abject failure. Their basic, foundational philosophy is to deny and/or ignore our social responsibilities and act solely for the furtherance of the individual. So they slash regulation and government programs because those are social tools which “get in the way” of individual advancement. The unfortunate reality, though, is that personal greed always disrupts the utopia the GOP claims they are building. That’s why, for example, every program that is at least partially (if not fully) privatized ends up with worse service and higher costs than it had as a public agency.

    And that’s why the housing crash has hit our economy so hard. The massive deregulation started in the 80’s and 90’s has advanced the law of the jungle rather than the needs of society, and now millions of ordinary Americans are paying the price. Some people are talking about how irresponsible these home buyers were to take more risky mortgages; but I would bet almost anything that in most cases, their banks told them, “It isn’t very risky, and you’ll get a much better return in the long run.” In other words, they were probably suckered into it in the first place by the banking industry, which was unregulated and therefore was allowed to run rampant with risky behavior and no safety net.

    That’s why we need regulation. We learned this lesson the hard way in the early 1930’s. And just as Santayana said, those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.

  • You should look up what happened in Montgomery County Maryland when mortgage regulations were proposed. Every mortgage company threatened to leave the county because the risk would be too high to keep going business in the county. — Superdestroyer, @27

    That’s because the proposed regulations were limited to a single county. In that case, the mortgage companies have the bigger stick, since they can certainly move out of that county, to where richer pickings are, and not feel any pain. But, if the same regulations obtained across the country (your 20% down/30 yrs seems a bit draconian, but 25% over 25 or 20 yrs perhaps not so much), they’d have to make do. What else would they do? Move to Mexico? Because, sure as sure, they wouldn’t want to move to Canada…

  • Breaking News:

    WASHINGTON — Slowly but steadily, a string of Democratic Party figures is taking Barack Obama’s side in the presidential nominating race and raising the pressure on Hillary Clinton to give up.

    Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is expected to endorse Sen. Obama Monday, according to a Democrat familiar with her plans. Meanwhile, North Carolina’s seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group — just one has so far — before that state’s May 6 primary, several Democrats say.

    Helping to drive the endorsements is a fear that the Obama-Clinton contest has grown toxic and threatens the Democratic Party’s chances against Republican John McCain in the fall.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692054573175525.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

  • Hmm, Republican policies about doing nothing, all in the name of limited government, apparently isn’t a big selling point to voters…

    Hellooooo, 1932!!!!

  • A lively discussion! I happen to live in the Montgomery County mentioned above. It’s an outlier on many fronts, but there’s been a strain of real estate insanity going ’round here for a long time where people buy nice houses for the lots, tear the houses down, and put up McMansions that stick out like sore thumbs within established (“seasoned”) neighborhoods. I have no sympathy for folks who took high risk mortgages or these kinds of homes — nor the idiot lenders who wrote them.

  • “Senator McCain, This is my primary residence. I can no longer afford the higher mortgage payment. The value of my house is now $xx less than when I bought it. Do you think that I’m a deserving home owner?”

    To such a person I would suggest renting, as I do. I would say, You gambled, you lost. If you’re foolish enough to think it’s normal to get paid to live in your house, then you have learned an important lesson about how the real world works.

    I cannot see why it must be a national priority to keep foolish homebuyers in their overpriced homes which they never should have bought in the first place, on which they put no money down (so they hardly ever “owned” it in the first place) and in many cases used the house as an ATM to cash out imaginary equity. Lots and lots of people took a gamble, lots lost. To bail them out is grossly unfair to people like me who used common sense, read the fine print, and responsibly said, no thanks, I’ll sit this one out.

    I do not differentiate between primary residences and so-called investment property, because, let’s face it, the reason so many people jumped on the housebuying bandwagon wasn’t because the prices were too good a deal to pass up, but because the buyers – first time or not – believed a home was an investment that was guaranteed to appreciate. If you buy a home you can’t afford on the assumption that it will be worth more in the future, you’re a speculator whether you live in the house or not.

    Practically speaking, a big piece of the mortgage crunch is the high price of houses itself. Not before prices are allowed to correct to their natural sustainable level, will they become more affordable, borrowers become better credit risks, and lending resume. The current prices are unsustainable and pumping government money into the system in an effort to prop up those prices is doomed to fail. It will cost us all a fortune we don’t have, and won’t accomplish anything but delay the inevitable for the mortgage borrowers, and buy the investors time to get out with their skins.

    This is the one subject that apparently turns me into a conservative, which I admit feels really weird.

  • [18] “Also, why reward the people who purchase too much house by raising the taxes of those who were responsbile [sic] in their home purchase?”

    [23]“The real question is why should people who made real down payments and financed using fixed rate mortages [sic] be expected to pay more taxes and higher fees because they were rational”?

    So, superdestroyer, I imagine the obscenely high price of the fiasco in Iraq, where the Republicans purchased “too much war” and will leave a $3 trillion tax burden on millions of Americans not yet born and with no say in the matter, must be the most infuriating bail-out policy ever devised, right?

    You were tricked by the filthy rich into mortgaging the future of every American on a “three months and $60 billion at most” war that now costs the same as a modest new home every minute of every day.

    Is it not possible that the same corporate greed, buoyed by rising home prices and abetted by convenient deregulation, took the same sort of advantage of John Q Homebuyer?

  • Bailing out homeowners may be good politics, but it is bad policy.

    Housing has become unaffordable; in bubble areas, extremely unaffordable.

    Why would we want to prop up median home prices that are up to ten times median incomes?

    Let prices go down. Then average families, now and in the future, will be able to afford to buy homes. Yes, this means many will lose their homes. They will rent. This is not the end of the world. They will not be homeless.

    Besides, notwithstanding the grief caused to families when they are foreclosed on, they are better off losing their homes, when compared to the situation they will be in if they are “helped” by a government program: that is, manacled to an asset that will be losing value over the next five years (at least), while owing more to the bank than the asset is worth. (Any “cramdowns” that take place now, when prices almost certainly have significantly further to fall, means that borrowers will be underwater again within a year.)

    Underwater homeowners are better off “walking.” Let the banks get the houses. Let some of the banks fail.

    Then start over. Those who were foreclosed on can (if they’re smart) spend the next seven years saving a downpayment so that, when the foreclosure falls off their credit report, they can qualify for a decent, non-predatory loan on a home that (hopefully) will be priced more in line with their income.

  • [36] “Those who were foreclosed on can (if they’re smart) spend the next seven years saving a downpayment so that, when the foreclosure falls off their credit report, they can qualify for a decent, non-predatory loan on a home that (hopefully) will be priced more in line with their income.”

    Great idea, Nancy! All they need to do is follow the glittering example of fiscal responsibility shown by the current administration. And wouldn’t Bear-Stearns have been better off “walking” too?

  • I agree with “Katie”. The sentiment where I live is we should not bail anyone out! This is from mostly Blue collar Democratic people.

  • tough call: Let’s not forget that Hon. Sen. McCain, if he ever gets around to reading Mr. Greenspan’s book (and assuming that Mr. Greenspan is honest about the matter) he will learn that the Maestro was telling Americans that ARMs were a great idea at a point where interest rates were the lowest in fifty years. Maybe at this point he’ll turn to his chief economic adviser, Mr. Phil Gramm and to re-learn more about how deregulating the banking/investment/mortgage industries was good for the economy after all.

  • Anyone besides me see that our Iraq policy and our Treasury policy are the same? This flood of bailouts resembles the military surge. A surge of liquidity. To both,get out now.

  • Maybe typical pro-Republican voters should finally realize that the GOP is not really their party (not to say the Democratic party is). This could be very eye-opening for may Republican voters. Maybe they will finally understand that the GOP as it really is.

  • Back in the days of Washington, there was a big debate over whether the new government should pay back bonds issued to fund the Revolutionary War. These bonds were no longer in the hands of the original purchasers but had been bought up by speculators. The southern states were debt free and did not to pay off debts incurred by other states. Also, the bonds would be redeemed by speculatores and not those to whom the debt was originally owed. It was viewed as rewarding a bad behavior. Hamilton was able to successflly argue that the wrong of paying speculators was outweighed by the good it would do the nation as a whole. The same situation applies here. Yes, some so-called undeserveds will benefit, but the nation as a whole will benefit. Our job is now to make certain that regulations are put in place and the agency in charge of monitoring the new rules has the most devious mind possible to ferret out any attempts to circumvent the inevitible end runs around the new regulations.

  • maggie1947,

    In a country with over one million attorneys, it is impossible that write regulations that people cannot circumvent in one way or another. Also, it takes the government about one year to propose, study, and finalize new regulations. So, even if the government monitors the situation, it is always one step behind the people who are trying to outsmart the government.

    About the only way to write regulations that cannot be circumvented is to outright ban something or make the last person holding something responsible for it (See RCRA).

  • Comments are closed.