Congress makes it hard to support foreclosure prevention legislation

by: Drum Major Institute

Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 14:00


This post is by Mark Winston Griffith, Senior Fellow of The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy.

If there is one thing that distressed homeowners need right now is smart, forward thinking legislation that can help slow down the wave of subprime mortgage inspired foreclosures, and establish strong anti-predatory lending measures.

Unfortunately, the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 which the Senate is poised to vote on, is not the one. Commentators on both the ideological right and left have plenty to complain about.  It's the kind of bipartisan, patchwork Frankenstein monster that only a politician's mother could love.

Let's be fair. It's not all bad.  In fact there is alot about the bill that is promising.  It includes much needed FHA modernization provisions, monies for foreclosure prevention and housing counseling, and Community Development Block Grants for state and local governments to purchase foreclosed properties and turn them into affordable housing.  

But ultimately, in an effort to satisfy Senate conservatives, none of whom are particularly interested in helping out distressed homeowners, it's filled with unnecessary tax breaks and measures designed to serve the interests of homebuilders and, bizarrely enough, perhaps even speculators.  Even the "enhanced" mortgage disclosures are a cruel joke for those hoping for full-scale, subprime mortgage era, anti-predatory lending provisions.  

And of course, it wouldn't be a real piece of patriotic American legislation without a nod to veterans. Fine, but quite a few civilians could use the 9 month stay on foreclosure proceedings too.

Perhaps most conspicuously absent is the bankruptcy reform that many progressives were advocating for, which would have given bankruptcy judges the ability to make mortgages more affordable, the way they already do with other kinds of debt.

Is this the best that this senate could salvage given opposition to more meaningful proposals? Perhaps.  Bush is announcing weak measures of his own which are designed to do an end-run around this bill.  

Nonetheless, the Senate has missed a real opportunity to create a broad mechanism for modifying mortgages destined for disaster, or to put in place landmark public policy that could help prevent abusive lending practices. The most enduring legacy of this bill could be that it serves to preempt stronger congressional measures, like those introduced by Durbin and Dodd for example.   To add insult to injury, it lends credence to critics of foreclosure prevention efforts who have been warning against bloated government bailouts.

Another classic example of government action.  By aiming too widely, it misses the mark.

Drum Major Institute :: Congress makes it hard to support foreclosure prevention legislation

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
House bill is different (4.00 / 1)
The House is considering different legislation, see here.  It will not look like the Senate bill.  Then there will be a conference.  Something will pass, and Bush will be hard pressed to veto it (unless the Dems pass something he is supposed to veto).

The Senate is closer to the big money folks (see Schumer, Chuck) and there is a great deal of expertise on these issues in the House.

The House's efforts on housing have so far been led by Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass. Frank is scheduled to start two days of hearings on Wednesday to debate his proposal to let the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insure $300 billion in troubled loans if lenders voluntarily write them down to at least 85% of the homes' appraised value.

The hearing will feature testimony from economists and key banking regulators, including Sheila Bair, head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and Randall Kroszner, a Federal Reserve governor.

Some political observers say that the FHA proposal may be a centerpiece of the House bill. But the Senate chose to exclude in its housing package a similar proposal from Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

Meanwhile, the first detailed indication of measures that could be in the House bill were proposed on Tuesday by Rangel.

Rangel's $11 billion Housing Assistance Tax Act differs from the Senate package in many ways.

One of the biggest differences: Rangel left out of his bill a controversial business tax break that the Senate has proposed. The provision - an expansion of the so-called net operating loss carryback - would extend to four years from two the time company may apply its 2008 and 2009 losses to past tax bills. The tax break would benefit homebuilders who prospered during the housing boom and now are banking big losses.

Put your efforts into the House bill and then the conference.  The Senate bill won't be what finally passes.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


Point well taken (0.00 / 0)
I'm the author of the original post. Thanks, for what seems like valuable insight. Your points are very well taken.  

I do, however, think it's important to track and comment on this legislation because whether or not it ultimately becomes law, it can have an affect on the on-going debate.
-mwg


[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
I meant to be somewhat reassuring, not critical.  Thanks for the post.  This is an important issue.

For more insight into the problems of subprime borrowers, see this piece by Kevin Drum showing that mortgage brokers (who aren't regulated like banks) screwed subprime borrowers to the tune of $35,000 plus in inflated interest payments while saving high-income borrowers money.  Keep this in mind when some right-wing ideologue starts going on about letting the market work its magic.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
caveat emptor (0.00 / 0)
don't people read the contracts they sign?

I'm all for more education on this stuff, but ultimately people MUST be responsible for the contracts they sign. I can appreciate that for many people a home mortgage is the first big contract they ever enter and they can be fooled. So we should have something like region help centers/hot lines where people can take a deal offered from a bank and have it reviewed so the terms can be explained to them. But at the end of the day people have to be responsible for the deals they sign, otherwise their is neither accountability for them or for the banks. Why should any of them bother to look into the details at all if the responsible wing of America is going to bail them out every time?

I'm liberal but not rich, and I have no interest in pay for other's foolishness or willful disregard of risk. Many more millions of Americans knew the market was over inflated and that you can't take a variable loan with 0% down and not face incredible near term risk.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
at the risk of pissing off everyone who cant stand to see someone lose their home (0.00 / 0)
im glad to see this bill does not enact the bankruptcy provisions and I am glad it does not induce any crazy notions of capping interest rates or forcing banks to refinance, or the govt god forbid buying up horrible mortgages. No bailouts. The number of people facing foreclosure is tiny. and even then its just a risk, not actual numbers. a significant percentage of these terrible mortgages were taken with people knowing full well the risks, likewise for the banks, this is aside from the speculators. these people can live and learn. Bankruptcy is a perfectly reasonable way to exit from being over extended. and corrected home prices will mean many low and moderate income people will finally be able to afford homes where they could not during the bubble. Losing your home sucks, but its not death, its not the end of the world, heck, its not even the end of ones ability to get credit.

Also, i know this is bound to raise the Bear Stearns deal. That was a sweetheart deal for JP Morgan, and everyone is right, the Fed should not be lending more money at cut rate prices. However, although the Fed is backing 29B in assets, its all very low risk - the number of mortgages that are going to fail in that pool are tiny. Its quite possible that Bear could have started a run on other investment houses - so that's a tough situation. So its board of directors should be hauled off to prison, and so should Alan Greenspan for creating the mess. Not that Dems are willing to do anything to take on the Fed and bank cronyism - yeah I'm talking to you Chuck Schumer. Any point is, the Bear deal, other than watering down our dollar (which really sucks yes, but makes debt for americans much cheaper) there is not a lot of bail out to the Bear deal - so lets not use it as a rational for more ludicris bleeding heart bailouts that end up double punishing all the responsible lower and middle class.

(Mark you know me from previous debates on this; same Will)

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


See the link I posted above (0.00 / 0)
Many of the lower income borrowers in fact did not know what they were getting into, and in many cases the brokers steered them into higher interest loans than they were qualified for.  There were also cases (I saw on 60 Minutes) where brokers wrote in the income amounts.  People lost all the equity they had been able to build up and will be behind the 8-ball for years.  You simply cannot equate an unsophisticated buyer with a sophisticated speculator, and that is why more regulation and enforcement are needed.  Moreover, foreclosures are bad for the whole community, which is why it makes sense to have money for localities to help out homeowners who can meet reasonable payments. The Senate bill is the wrong approach, but having the FHA buy mortgages and allowing restructuring in bankruptcy for low income borrowers are good ideas.  Let the sophisticated fail, I agree, but many people were simply exploited here.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
caveat emptor (0.00 / 0)
see above. nobody forces you to sign.

any market correction is not good for share holders. so what. its fantastic for those who are not share holders but want to be. foreclosures are great for people in the community who do not yet own. so actually they can be good for the community, it just depends on which segment you want to favor.

and if the localities want to prop up their home prices they are welcome to do so with funds from their property owners. we could use 30B where I live for some neighborhood improvements, but I don't see why the rest of america should pay to prop up prices on my block.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
let me add (0.00 / 0)
I bought $60,000 worth of Bear Stearns two months ago. I had no idea it would tank, can I get a government refinancing on that too? I was duped - everyone was saying I should invest for retirement and my broker said Bear was the best.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
I somewhat agree (0.00 / 0)
Foreclosure isn't the end of the world.  Its just bad credit and six months free rent.  Possibly more in the current environment.

We should not bail out distressed homeowners because there isn't any real good reason to.  Should we take money from people too poor to own a home to bail out those with enough income to own a home, but simply made a bad investment?

I wouldn't be averse to enacting an interest rate cap, as that isn't a bailout.  That is regulation that is needed.  We trust that the government protects us from things like predatory lending.  The fact that it doesn't is a problem.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox