"Please save my McMansion US Government!"

David and I were amused this morning by an article in the Wall Street Journal about people who think it's unfair that their house loans are too big to qualify for government bailout money.

First we get the sad story of Pete, whom the Journal describes as "the kind of affluent customer that banks once coveted." (Read: white, upper middle class, willing to buy more house that he can afford.)

The 35-year-old technology executive -- who says he has a spotless credit record and at least 20% equity in his home -- has come up empty-handed in his search for a jumbo mortgage of more than $1 million for his recently built five-bedroom home in Alamo, Calif., near San Francisco.

Awhhhh! Poor baby. You can't get government money for your million dollar house. I feel so sorry for you . . .

David's comment: "Anyone who identifies themselves as a 'technology executive' is a douche."

We are also introduced to Brandon:

. . . a vice president of marketing for a food-products company, who was approved by his credit union for a $990,000 loan last year to buy a home in the Sherman Oaks section of Los Angeles. He had hoped to move his growing family out of the single-family house he has rented for the past four years and into a larger one. Those plans fell through when his credit union told him in December that they were getting out of jumbo lending.

You know what? There's no shame in renting in this economy. It's actually a pretty smart move. But unfortunately Brandon and his wife don't see it that way.

. . . he and his wife have high incomes and a solid credit rating, but that the money he had planned on using to make a larger down payment was lost in the stock market. He says his only option now is to wait for home prices to fall another 20% or to save an additional $100,000.

I love the line "lost in the stock market." Like the these people are in no way culpable for their own investment decisions, but it simply was stolen by no fault of their own. And they certainly can't wait it out a little longer in the single family home they've been in for four year. That would be unthinkable in our culture of immediate gratification and entitlement. (Of course, this couple may not have to wait long for housing prices to fall 20% more!)

But my favorite is the image that accompanies the story.


Is this the whitest guy ever? Khakis, blue shirt, standing in front of a totally generic McMansion on a barren landscape. (This picture also demonstrates one of my pet-peeves about McMansions - Home Depot sized windows on a house way too big for them.) This is Neil, who thinks that the government should subsidize his ability to have a long commute into Boulder, CO because houses are more expensive in his area. I hope that slight smirk on his face means he recognizes the ridiculousness of his claim.

David's remarks are spot on: "Everything about that guy, especially his khakis, I hate. And he's wearing them with black shoes and a black belt. Blech."

Not that you should ever judge people in their clothes.

But seriously, let's think about this article a little more critically. Who is the target audience of the Wall Street Journal? Probably a lot of people who are in the same position as the individuals highlighted in the article. Upper middle class to upper class, white, professionals who are starting to feel the effects of the economic crisis. These are also the people who probably bought McMansions beyond their means in the past 5 years when credit was cheap and their stock market-based investments were giving them high returns. Now their having to scale back their spending, rethink their investments, and cannot afford the houses they should never have bought in the first place. I know the Journal is trying to write this objectively, but to me it seems like an attempt to drum up sympathy and get support for increasing the mortgage loan limit for government bail-out money. Look at your affluent, suburban, white brethren, dear readers. This could be you!