I don’t believe this is a level playing field situation even if it applies to all businesses.
Let’s just take Bob Toll as an example. He took huge risks, accordingly made huge money during the boom, and then lost a lot in the bust.
Now contrast that to a business run by someone who wasn’t reckless. This hypothetical owner was more careful so had more modest profits in the boom, but then didn’t lose money in the bust. So this policy doesn’t benefit this business owner at all.
The net of it is that it benefits the homebuilder by subsidizing the losses he took for being reckless, but it doesn’t have a direct impact on the non-reckless.
So it is a question of bailing out the reckless (again). It’s not a level playing field because it largely rewards those who took huge, stupid risks, while not providing any help to those who did not.
