Tag Archives: Bailout

Why the mortgage cramdown bill would hurt consumers

The Democrats are pushing a “cramdown” bill which is a bill designed to allow federal judges to renegotiate the terms of delinquent mortgages when the person who entered into a contract to borrow the money cannot repay it. The problem with this bill is that it hurts the very people it is intended to help – because as soon as banks see that they cannot rely of the courts to enforce contracts, they will immediately stop making loans to those with mediocre credit ratings. So, the people who most need to borrow money will be the hardest hit. And it opens the door for the government to then seize control of the banks and force them to make the loans, so that we turn into Venezuela.

Consider this article from the Heritage Foundation:

Just as the housing market is showing definite signs that it is stabilizing after a lengthy drop in housing prices, the House of Representatives is about to vote on proposal that would destabilize it once again while also raising the cost of mortgages for future home buyers.

The proposal – to be offered by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) as an amendment to the financial regulation bill now before the House -would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the principal owed on a mortgage, a practice often referred to as a “cramdown.” Judges would also be able to reduce interest rates or lengthen the term of the mortgage.

This is a huge policy mistake that would help only a few people while raising the cost of borrowing for thousands of moderate-income and first-time homebuyers.

Fortunately the bill failed to pass, but it does show you the fatal flaw of Democrat emotion-based policy-making. They hurt the very people they are trying to help – the cause the very crisis they are trying to alleviate. That is standard operating procedure for Democrats. They don’t understand the incentives they are creating when they pass “compassionate” laws.

Democrat secures TARP funds for unemployed homeowners

On another subject, take a look at this AP article. (H/T Michelle Malkin)

Excerpt:

Call it the $6 billion boycott.

By boycotting a key House committee vote last week and threatening to abandon support for banking regulations, members of the Congressional Black Caucus got $4 billion added to a Wall Street regulation bill and $2 billion to a proposed House jobs bill in spending they sought for African American communities.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., this week inserted $3 billion to the legislation to provide low-interest loans to unemployed homeowners in danger of foreclosure. He added $1 billion for neighborhood revitalization programs.

The money would come out of the $700 billion financial rescue fund.

“For those of us who walked out, it was absolutely essential that we have parts of that legislation directed toward helping people who have been left out of all of these bailouts,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., one of 10 black caucus members in the Financial Services Committee, said…Among the caucus’ demands were greater assistance for minority-owned auto dealerships and banks that lend in African-American communities and more government advertising in minority-owned media.

This is taking money out of the private sector, which creates jobs, and bailing out people who bought too much house. Taking money out of the private sector destroys economic growth. And that is why we have a 10% unemployment rate.

MUST-LISTEN: Michele Bachmann issues conservative call to action

Listen to the interview here.

Other media formats with the same interview:

I highly recommend listening to this 30-minute podcast. Very moving. At one point she is almost in tears as she pleads with people to call Washington and tell them not to spend any more taxpayer money. Never heard anything like this before from a legislator in all my life.

Thomas Sowell explains how politicians cause recessions while getting elected

Article here at Townhall.com. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

After the cascade of economic disasters that began in the housing markets in 2006 and spread into the financial markets in Wall Street and even overseas, people in the private sector pulled back. Banks stopped making so many risky loans. Home buyers began buying homes they could afford, instead of going out on a limb with “creative”– and risky– financing schemes to buy homes that were beyond their means.

But politicians went directly in the opposite direction. In the name of “rescuing” the housing market, Congress passed laws enabling the Federal Housing Administration to insure more and bigger risky loans– loans where there is less than a 4 percent down payment.

A recent news story told of three young men who chipped in a total of $33,000 to buy a home in San Francisco that cost nearly a million dollars. Why would a bank lend that kind of money to them on such a small down payment? Because the loan was insured by the Federal Housing Administration.

The bank wasn’t taking any risk. If the three guys defaulted, the bank could always collect the money from the Federal Housing Administration. The only risk was to the taxpayers.

Does the Federal Housing Administration have unlimited money to bail out bad loans? Actually there have been so many defaults that the FHA’s own reserves have dropped below where they are supposed to be. But not to worry. There will always be taxpayers, not to mention future generations to pay off the national debt.

Very few people are likely to connect the dots back to those members of Congress who voted for bigger mortgage guarantees and bailouts by the FHA. So the Congressmen’s and the bureaucrats’ jobs are safe, even if millions of other people’s jobs are not.

Congressman Barney Frank is not about to cut back on risky mortgage loan guarantees by the FHA. He recently announced that he plans to introduce legislation to raise the limit on FHA loan guarantees even more.

Congressman Frank will make himself popular with people who get those loans and with banks that make these high-risk loans where they can pocket the profits and pass the risk on to the FHA.

So long as the taxpayers don’t understand that all this political generosity and compassion are at their expense, Barney Frank is an odds-on favorite to get re-elected. The man is not stupid.

Can you guess which political party Barney Frank represents?