You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
WH opposes Democrats' attempt to buy votes mortgage relief bill
2008-04-29
Congressional Democrats and the White House are on a collision course over an ambitious proposal drafted to address the spreading mortgage crisis. The Bush administration calls the bill a "bailout," saying it "strongly opposes" the legislation sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, intended to make it easier for homeowners to refinance their loans and stay in their homes.

The committee, which estimates that the program could help 1.5 million homeowners who are having difficulty paying their mortgages, is expected to approve Frank's bill next week.

Frank says the millions of individuals who might face foreclosure because of the expanding credit crisis deserve help, even if they made a mistake by borrowing beyond their means. "There are people who made loans that should not have been made; there are some people that were wrong to take the loans out, some wrong to make the loans. If nothing happens and all those loans go under foreclosure, the economy suffers," he said.

The bill would not authorize the government to loan taxpayers' money directly to homeowners. Instead, it would authorize the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee up to $300 billion in new mortgages offered by government-approved private lenders. The new mortgages could at most equal 90 percent of a home's current value. Only homeowners who have a mortgage-debt-to-income ratio of 35 percent or higher and who entered into a mortgage before January would qualify for the program.

For a homeowner to get a new FHA-backed loan, the holder of the current mortgage would have to accept a loss and take a payment totaling no more than 85 percent of the home's value.

The government would also get a share of profits if the homeowner sold the house in the future and would have to pay the lenders only if homeowners defaulted on FHA-backed mortgages. The Financial Services committee estimates that 1 to 2 percent of the new loans would default, costing the government between $3 billion and $6 billion.

The administration touted existing FHA programs, including the FHASecure plan the president announced in August, calling them "simpler and more targeted" ways to help homeowners who are behind in their mortgage payments. The administration says the FHASecure program will help half a million homeowners by the end of the year.

Some congressional Republicans also oppose Frank's proposal, saying it essentially forces one neighbor to pay for the mistakes of another. "You're telling the guy who did it right that he has to help pay for the guy who did it wrong," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas. "When people are struggling to pay for their mortgages, they shouldn't be forced to pay for their neighbors' mortgage.

"I think about 95 percent of America is either renting a home, they own their home outright, or they're current on their mortgage," he said. "So 95 percent of America who's doing it right is asked to help bail out 5 percent of America who probably wasn't doing it right."

Hensarling also said Frank's bill amounted to a bailout of the large banks that made the ill-advised loans in the first place. "You can not bail out borrowers without bailing out lenders," he said. "This is a massive Wall Street bailout bill."
Posted by:gorb

#3  There IS a simple solution to the housing mess, simply have the Government DEMAND (With prison terms as needed) that all variable mortgages be "Reset' to the original, Pre-raising interest that the homeowners first agreed on, converted to a "Fixed-at-that-rate Mortgage", and make variable rate mortgages illegal..

Then the sufferers would be the thieves who pushed these Variables in he first place, not the homeowners told "Don't worry about it, it's not going to raise, it's just a precaution".
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-04-29 23:46  

#2  I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings, but this type issue brings out some populist too.

1) People that borrowed more than they should have shouldn't be bailed out.

2) People that used all the marketing bait and switch and fine print to trick people into (1) should be shot.

3) if the whole housing market goes under we're all in trouble.

So how do we get out of this mess? (and yes I realize that congress pushed easier lending policies for years. But, the pols. wagon is so full of sins there's no where to add this one)

I didn't support the bail out of Chrysler back in the day, but that worked out okay. Is this similar on a distributed basis?

The one thing that government COULD do in the future is rather than getting involved in the mechanisms, set standards for transparency so that everyone knows exactly what they're getting into.
Similarly, I've seen estimates that we could save billions on healthcare by merely rationalizing and standardizing the paperwork. Maybe an exaggeration but I know that that kind of standardization can dramatically improve a process.

So, how do you implement 1) & 2) without realizing 3)?
Posted by: AlanC   2008-04-29 14:23  

#1  The Bush administration calls the bill a "bailout,"

Why, yes it is. However, it follows the Donk election motto - Money for nothing and chicks for free.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-04-29 09:28  

00:00