President Bush is joining the media call for sub-prime bailouts and offering federal help for those who have made bad decisions. During the last 5 years, mortgage lenders chose to make risky loans to under-qualified applicants based on the speculation that real estate prices would continue to rise.

Likewise, people chose to purchase homes that they could not otherwise afford. They too speculated that they could dump their homes at higher prices when the teaser rates expired.

These unqualified buyers further inflated real estate prices beyond their reasonable value.

Now, that the bubble has burst, politicians seek to remove the risk that these lenders and buyers knowingly assumed by softening their financial penalty. The president proposes that these buyers be allowed to refinance under FHA guarantees (the feds will guarantee the loan balance to the lenders in case of default, which would be likely if these same buyers couldn’t afford the original fixed term loan payments). All taxpayers will pay for that bailout.

The Federal Reserve Bank simply prints more money to lessen the penalty to these risky lenders and to those who have invested in their businesses. Anyone who is forced to use US dollars (all US citizens) pays for that bailout. All that money you put-away for retirement will now be worth less, and you’ll have to go out and create more wealth to compensate for this increased inflation.

Bailouts always punish those who behave responsibly and reward those who behave irresponsibly. As long as the government promises a safety net, people will continue to build homes under sea-level, sign contracts they knowingly cannot guarantee, or refuse to purchase insurance.

To the extent that governments engage in this unjust, looting and criminal redistribution, societies will crumble.

I recently made a purchasing decision to add a second phone line to our home based on the quoted rate at AT&T’s web site which was about $7/month based on the minimal options (hook-up fee excluded). Based on the first bill, I will be paying over $16/month for this service. Why the difference? Mostly “Surcharges and Other Fees,” according to the AT&T bill. These are not taxes (which add up to about $1.10 on a separate line-item), but rather AT&T’s own “surcharges.”

We’re all aware of the increasing deception in price quotes in various industries using this “surcharge” tactic. The $39.95 mobile phone plan rarely costs under $55.00. Concert tickets always have mandatory service fees added by the likes of Ticketmaster. However, the so-called public utility phone company almost doubling my bill is excessive.

I chose to add the line based on the quoted amount and expected to pay another, say, 20% from taxes and surcharges (which are always mentioned in the fine print). Had I known that the rate was $16/month, I would have simply kept my $13/month email/fax service and not paid the $35 (plus, you guess it, surcharges) for hooking up the phone line or spent hours rewiring my home to use the new phone line. So now, I’m still better off canceling the low-ball AT&T line and getting a fax service again.

I’m not sure what consumers can do except expect the worst up front, and be pleasantly surprised if the surcharges aren’t doubling the quoted amount. I wish that those who engage in this deceptive advertising would be financially penalized by their bad reputations, instead of rewarded to the extent of their success in deceiving their clients.

If anyone knows of any good resources for combating this trend, please leave feedback.

Update: AT&T claims that these surcharges are in fact FCC Fees (i.e., taxes) that they pass on to subscribers. However, these are still not added to the advertized price when shopping or subscribing (except for the typical “surcharges and fees extra” fine print). A baker does not add a “yeast surcharge” to the advertised price, so why should the phone company get away with this?