I appreciate your digging into this. The 1913 tidbit is an interesting wrinkle. I'd say, based on experience and conversations w/ elected officials, at the end

I appreciate your digging into this. The 1913 tidbit is an interesting wrinkle. I'd say, based on experience and conversations w/ elected officials, at the end of the day "encourage home ownership" is less likely to be a driver, but more so a selling point to the public. I also seem to remember reading in a number of sources, one of Michael Lewis' books comes to mind, is that Lew Ranieri (and friends) is a probable reason for the deduction's survival if, as you suggest, there was any real discussion about cutting the MI deduction. I can also tell you that NAR, for the more recent discussion about cutting the MI and SALT deductions would have been (and were) a significant factor in lobbying against changes that they would expect to slow sales. Externally, lobbying is talked about as some sort of corrupting force to be excised. Internally, it's simply considered to be an integral part of the legislative process. IMHO, people should attribute less to altruism decisions that are likely linked to someone's lobbying efforts. Thanks again.