Tag Archives: Unemployment

News

Why the mortgage cramdown bill would hurt consumers

1 Comment

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.

Videos

Michele Bachmann interviewed on the Pat Robertson’s 700 Club

Leave a comment

Michele Bachmann explains the details of the health care plan. (H/T Muddling Towards Maturity)

Once again, she’s speaking really well today – like William Lane Craig. Smooth, full of interesting details. What a delight. Be sure and check out her last video, when she was doing the exact same thing with the war in Afghanistan. She’s still looking very serious and intense. I feel badly that the Democrats are making her unhappy and there isn’t anything I can do about it – but I did send her a donation.

She’s trying to convince social conservatives to become fiscal conservatives!

Tune in for my 6 PM post, and you’ll find out how Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse tries to convince fiscal conservatives to become social conservatives!

Recent Michele Bachmann stuff

News

What will the Copenhagen conference mean to ordinary Americans?

1 Comment

Article from Forbes magazine. (H/T Muddling Towards Maturity)

Excerpt:

Whatever the results of the Copenhagen conference on climate change, one thing is for sure: Draconian reductions on carbon emissions will be tacitly accepted by the most developed economies and sloughed off by many developing ones. In essence, emerging economies get to cut their “carbon” intensity–a natural product of their economic evolution–while we get to cut our throats.

[…]Our leaders will dutifully accept cuts in our carbon emissions–up to 80% by 2050–while developing countries increasetheirs, albeit at a lower rate. Oh, we also pledge to send billions in aid to help them achieve this goal.The media shills, scientists, bureaucrats and corporate rent-seekers gathered at Copenhagen won’t give much thought to what this means to the industrialized world’s middle and working class. For many of them the new carbon regime means a gradual decline in living standards. Huge increases in energy costs, taxes and a spate of regulatory mandates will restrict their access to everything from single-family housing and personal mobility to employment in carbon-intensive industries like construction, manufacturing, warehousing and agriculture.

You can get a glimpse of this future in high-unemployment California. Here a burgeoning regulatory regime tied to global warming threatens to turn the state into a total “no go” economic development zone. Not only do companies have to deal with high taxes, cascading energy prices and regulations, they now face audits of their impact on global warming. Far easier to move your project to Texas–or if necessary, China.

Now consider this Wall Street Journal article regarding the EPA decision to call carbon dioxide a threat to public health.

Excerpt:

An endangerment finding would allow the EPA to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, which are produced whenever fossil fuel is burned. Under that law, the EPA could require emitters of as little as 250 tons of carbon dioxide per year to install new technology to curb their emissions starting as soon as 2012.

The EPA has said it will only require permits from big emitters — facilities that put out 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. But that effort to tailor the regulations to avoid slamming small businesses with new costs is expected to be challenged in court.

Legislators are aware that polls show the public appetite for action that would raise energy prices to protect the environment has fallen precipitously amid the recession.

Congressional legislation also faces plenty of U.S. industry opposition. Under the legislation, which has been passed by the House but is now stuck in the Senate, the federal government would set a cap on the amount of greenhouse gas the economy could emit every year. The government would distribute a set number of emission permits to various industries. Companies that wanted to be able to emit more than their quota could buy extra permits from those that had figured out how to emit less.

Proponents of the cap-and-trade approach say emission-permit trading will encourage industries to find the least-expensive ways to curb greenhouse-gas output. But opponents say it will saddle key industries with high costs not borne by rivals in China or India, and potentially cost the U.S. jobs.

There will be an economic impact on ordinary Americans from the Democrats trying to “do something” about global warming. The economic impact will not be felt primarily by liberal elites in government.