I doubt this is a fresh argument but it makes me more inclined to see things like mortgage regulations as a national security issue.
I read through a public list of the decisions on clearance appeals a couple of years ago, and financial concerns were a very common reason for denied clearances. (Might have been http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/)
Another thing I found interesting from that list was that a lot of concerns (e.g. earlier drug consumption) could be successfully addressed, but lying on the questionnaire was pretty close to an absolute no-go. I also expected a lot more denials for political opinion to stop ideologically motivated whistleblowers, but barely found any such entries.
When he got to the part of the form that asked if he has ever consumed drugs, he said "yes" as he should have by being honest. The follow up question asks something along the lines of, "If yes, will you ever consume drugs again?"
The jack-ass decided to answer "I won't not do them again..." We fired him a few days later.
Edit: Yes, it is better to work at a car wash than to get convicted for lying to federal agents. Don't believe me? Ask any federal prisoner if they'd be willing to work at a car wash in exchange for their freedom.
[...]
In the last seven (7) years have you intentionally engaged in the misuse of prescription drugs, regardless of whether or not the drugs were prescribed for you or someone else?
[...]
In the last seven (7) years has your use of alcohol had a negative impact on your work performance, your professional or personal relationships, your finances, or resulted in intervention by law enforcement/public safety personnel?"
They also ask a bunch of other questions as follow-ons. https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86-non508.pdf form page 93 PDF page 96.
Realistically this could be a concern with nearly any ideology, so unless you were going to reject anyone who had political opinions at all (and to be honest I’d be pretty suspicious of people who claimed not to on such a form) that’s probably a nonstarter.
"...Ms. Newbold also asserted that the Trump administration had made changes to security protocols that made it easier for individuals to get clearances. The changes included stopping credit checks on applicants to work in the White House, which she said helps identify if employees of the president could be susceptible to blackmail."[0]
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/us/politics/trump-securit...
The whistleblower, an 18-year civil servant, allegedly received retribution from superiors for speaking out against the abuse, which puts our national security at risk by inviting foreign powers to leverage government officials.
Regarding the last point, I might add that I would expect any denial that is really based on political ideology to be offically due to anything but.
I'm reminded of a similar circumstance of a family member. They bought a home prior to the financial crisis. They were given new orders and had to leave their home. They did manage to rent it but the lease was less than the mortgage and taxes. Their duty change sent them from a cheap southeast home to expensive northwestern apartment. Since that house ended up eating up a good chunk of their housing allowance they could only afford a 1 bedroom apartment for a family of 4. They didn't have to do a short sale, but for 2 years they were just scraping by financially, and mentally.
Your officers story just made me remember what he was going through and just how close he could have lost it all.
You'd think that the government implemented the mortgage assistance because they couldn't afford to lose too many career military personnel.
These morality lessons we see aimed at societies aren’t mere moralizing — they’re an evolved code of conduct designed to keep a vibrant whole in the face of genuine adversarial conditions.
People have forgotten the value of a strong national identity in many Western nations, largely because of the activity of groups funded by outside nations.