Bad medicine: Hillarycare for the housing market

[hipmatt]

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/05/bad-medicine-hillarycare-for-the-housing-market/

If you thought Hillary Clinton’s government takeover plan for health care was bad, wait ’til you see what she has in store for the housing sector. As always with the Clintons, the market is the problem and Big Nanny is the solution. Unfortunately for taxpayers, Hillary has bipartisan company in the Bush administration on this issue. Their election season prescription? Rewarding bad behavior. Punishing responsible behavior. Doing more harm than good.

In case you’ve been living in a cave, there’s a painful credit crunch underway. The culprit is the subprime mortgage — a species of risky home loans to buyers with dubious credit and income. Cash-rich lenders doled out the subprimes hoping rising home prices would compensate for any failed bets. But when housing prices started plummeting and interest rates began rising, many borrowers started defaulting. Insolvency looms for countless lenders.

Instead of letting lenders and subprime mortgage-holders suffer the consequences of their actions, politicians and grievance-mongers are riding to the supposed rescue. In a supreme irony, the very same champions of the needy in the Democrat Party who complain constantly about the lack of “affordable housing” are now fighting tooth and nail to keep housing prices high…

… Let’s boil this down to fundamentals: Why should the rest of us have to shoulder the burden because some buyers made poor choices, overextended themselves and bought more house than they could afford? Why should other business owners bear the costs of lenders’ failed bets? And why are falling home prices such a catastrophe to be “fixed” in the first place?

… Fiscal conservatives ought to be balking at Hillarycare for housing. But President Bush’s treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, is singing a similar tune. He proposed a new safety net to stem the tide of home foreclosures through a bailout plan for homeowners with bad credit scores. They’d be eligible for relief from paying hundreds of dollars in additional monthly payments when their mortgage rates reset. Those who have been responsible enough to maintain good credit, however, will be out of luck. In addition, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has proposed that government-sponsored mortgage enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be allowed to raise their loan limits and have their debt explicitly guaranteed by the public dole.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are colluding to protect the reckless and keep home prices high on the backs of prudent taxpayers. Who’ll bail us out from this perversion of the American Dream?

more at her site

[Arty]

I don’t get it. Last time I checked, Bush is our president, and the bail out is from his adminstration. Why put Hillary’s name in the headline. Wait, oh, I forgot Michelle Malkin is a racist, a conservative, and a hypocrites. Btw, I fully expect Hillary to do things she mentioned. However, for a Republican adminstration to do the same thing. Shame on you first before criticizing Hillary :). I don’t like Hillary btw, go Edwards.

[Arty]

I don’t get it. Last time I checked, Bush is our president, and the bail out is from his adminstration. Why put Hillary’s name in the headline. Wait, oh, I forgot Michelle Malkin is a racist, a conservative, and a hypocrites. Btw, I fully expect Hillary to do things she mentioned. However, for a Republican adminstration to do the same thing. Shame on you first before criticizing Hillary :). I don’t like Hillary btw, go Edwards.

[Arty]

I don’t get it. Last time I checked, Bush is our president, and the bail out is from his adminstration. Why put Hillary’s name in the headline. Wait, oh, I forgot Michelle Malkin is a racist, a conservative, and a hypocrites. Btw, I fully expect Hillary to do things she mentioned. However, for a Republican adminstration to do the same thing. Shame on you first before criticizing Hillary :). I don’t like Hillary btw, go Edwards.

[Arty]

I don’t get it. Last time I checked, Bush is our president, and the bail out is from his adminstration. Why put Hillary’s name in the headline. Wait, oh, I forgot Michelle Malkin is a racist, a conservative, and a hypocrites. Btw, I fully expect Hillary to do things she mentioned. However, for a Republican adminstration to do the same thing. Shame on you first before criticizing Hillary :). I don’t like Hillary btw, go Edwards.

[Arty]

I don’t get it. Last time I checked, Bush is our president, and the bail out is from his adminstration. Why put Hillary’s name in the headline. Wait, oh, I forgot Michelle Malkin is a racist, a conservative, and a hypocrites. Btw, I fully expect Hillary to do things she mentioned. However, for a Republican adminstration to do the same thing. Shame on you first before criticizing Hillary :). I don’t like Hillary btw, go Edwards.

[hipmatt]

http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_D_op_05_ed_mortgage1.96e1.html

10:00 PM PST on Tuesday, December 4, 2007

The same California Legislature that failed this year to fix the state’s prison system, water supply and budget now wants to solve the home mortgage crisis. But legislators need to realize that government has only limited power to forestall foreclosures — and that political grandstanding could easily add to the financial carnage.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, and other legislative Democrats last week called for a special session of the Legislature to address mortgage foreclosures. The Democrats unveiled a package of proposals to address the crisis, including measures to tighten restrictions on lending practices.

Such proposals would do little to stem the tide of foreclosures, however. Government cannot change the terms of existing loans; only lenders and borrowers can agree to restructure the loans, which many are already doing. The legislation could only affect future mortgages, not the many loans in danger of default now.

And existing mortgages are the real crisis, especially the higher-cost subprime loans offered to people with poor credit. Democrats said foreclosures on subprime loans from 2005-06 could cost the state $3 billion in property taxes and $1 billion in sales and transfer taxes. Foreclosures have hit the Inland region at a rate of 1 out of every 43 homes since July, and a report released last week by the U.S. Conference of Mayors said the housing slump could cost the region $2.3 billion.

But about all politicians can really do is inform borrowers of their rights and cajole lenders into renegotiating payment terms. Gov. Schwarzenegger’s November agreement with four lenders, for example, mostly amounted to a promise to freeze interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages to keep homeowners out of default. And that voluntary effort only covers about a fourth of the 500,000 subprime loans in California.

The Democrats’ proposals include ending incentives for lenders to push high-cost subprime loans onto borrowers who could qualify for cheaper mortgages, and requiring lenders to verify that a borrower has the means to repay a loan. And the package includes a ban on prepayment penalties — fees on borrowers for repaying a loan early, which discourage refinancing.

But reining in abusive lending practices is not as clear-cut as politicians might think. Many of the mortgage deals now under scrutiny exist to help more people qualify for money to buy homes. Restrictions that protect consumers at the expense of drying up credit would deprive many Californians of any chance to own a home.

Nor does government have the responsibility rescue people from their own reckless financial decisions. Not everyone facing foreclosure is a victim of unethical lenders; some just exercised poor judgment.

The issue calls for a light touch and a carefully calibrated balance, neither of which has been a hallmark of California’s polarized Legislature.

The surge in foreclosures creates heavy personal and public costs, certainly. But wise legislators will understand that government can at best be only a bit player in this tragedy, and will not dangerously overplay their role.

[hipmatt]

http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_D_op_05_ed_mortgage1.96e1.html

10:00 PM PST on Tuesday, December 4, 2007

The same California Legislature that failed this year to fix the state’s prison system, water supply and budget now wants to solve the home mortgage crisis. But legislators need to realize that government has only limited power to forestall foreclosures — and that political grandstanding could easily add to the financial carnage.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, and other legislative Democrats last week called for a special session of the Legislature to address mortgage foreclosures. The Democrats unveiled a package of proposals to address the crisis, including measures to tighten restrictions on lending practices.

Such proposals would do little to stem the tide of foreclosures, however. Government cannot change the terms of existing loans; only lenders and borrowers can agree to restructure the loans, which many are already doing. The legislation could only affect future mortgages, not the many loans in danger of default now.

And existing mortgages are the real crisis, especially the higher-cost subprime loans offered to people with poor credit. Democrats said foreclosures on subprime loans from 2005-06 could cost the state $3 billion in property taxes and $1 billion in sales and transfer taxes. Foreclosures have hit the Inland region at a rate of 1 out of every 43 homes since July, and a report released last week by the U.S. Conference of Mayors said the housing slump could cost the region $2.3 billion.

But about all politicians can really do is inform borrowers of their rights and cajole lenders into renegotiating payment terms. Gov. Schwarzenegger’s November agreement with four lenders, for example, mostly amounted to a promise to freeze interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages to keep homeowners out of default. And that voluntary effort only covers about a fourth of the 500,000 subprime loans in California.

The Democrats’ proposals include ending incentives for lenders to push high-cost subprime loans onto borrowers who could qualify for cheaper mortgages, and requiring lenders to verify that a borrower has the means to repay a loan. And the package includes a ban on prepayment penalties — fees on borrowers for repaying a loan early, which discourage refinancing.

But reining in abusive lending practices is not as clear-cut as politicians might think. Many of the mortgage deals now under scrutiny exist to help more people qualify for money to buy homes. Restrictions that protect consumers at the expense of drying up credit would deprive many Californians of any chance to own a home.

Nor does government have the responsibility rescue people from their own reckless financial decisions. Not everyone facing foreclosure is a victim of unethical lenders; some just exercised poor judgment.

The issue calls for a light touch and a carefully calibrated balance, neither of which has been a hallmark of California’s polarized Legislature.

The surge in foreclosures creates heavy personal and public costs, certainly. But wise legislators will understand that government can at best be only a bit player in this tragedy, and will not dangerously overplay their role.

[hipmatt]

http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_D_op_05_ed_mortgage1.96e1.html

10:00 PM PST on Tuesday, December 4, 2007

The same California Legislature that failed this year to fix the state’s prison system, water supply and budget now wants to solve the home mortgage crisis. But legislators need to realize that government has only limited power to forestall foreclosures — and that political grandstanding could easily add to the financial carnage.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, and other legislative Democrats last week called for a special session of the Legislature to address mortgage foreclosures. The Democrats unveiled a package of proposals to address the crisis, including measures to tighten restrictions on lending practices.

Such proposals would do little to stem the tide of foreclosures, however. Government cannot change the terms of existing loans; only lenders and borrowers can agree to restructure the loans, which many are already doing. The legislation could only affect future mortgages, not the many loans in danger of default now.

And existing mortgages are the real crisis, especially the higher-cost subprime loans offered to people with poor credit. Democrats said foreclosures on subprime loans from 2005-06 could cost the state $3 billion in property taxes and $1 billion in sales and transfer taxes. Foreclosures have hit the Inland region at a rate of 1 out of every 43 homes since July, and a report released last week by the U.S. Conference of Mayors said the housing slump could cost the region $2.3 billion.

But about all politicians can really do is inform borrowers of their rights and cajole lenders into renegotiating payment terms. Gov. Schwarzenegger’s November agreement with four lenders, for example, mostly amounted to a promise to freeze interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages to keep homeowners out of default. And that voluntary effort only covers about a fourth of the 500,000 subprime loans in California.

The Democrats’ proposals include ending incentives for lenders to push high-cost subprime loans onto borrowers who could qualify for cheaper mortgages, and requiring lenders to verify that a borrower has the means to repay a loan. And the package includes a ban on prepayment penalties — fees on borrowers for repaying a loan early, which discourage refinancing.

But reining in abusive lending practices is not as clear-cut as politicians might think. Many of the mortgage deals now under scrutiny exist to help more people qualify for money to buy homes. Restrictions that protect consumers at the expense of drying up credit would deprive many Californians of any chance to own a home.

Nor does government have the responsibility rescue people from their own reckless financial decisions. Not everyone facing foreclosure is a victim of unethical lenders; some just exercised poor judgment.

The issue calls for a light touch and a carefully calibrated balance, neither of which has been a hallmark of California’s polarized Legislature.

The surge in foreclosures creates heavy personal and public costs, certainly. But wise legislators will understand that government can at best be only a bit player in this tragedy, and will not dangerously overplay their role.

[hipmatt]

http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_D_op_05_ed_mortgage1.96e1.html

10:00 PM PST on Tuesday, December 4, 2007

The same California Legislature that failed this year to fix the state’s prison system, water supply and budget now wants to solve the home mortgage crisis. But legislators need to realize that government has only limited power to forestall foreclosures — and that political grandstanding could easily add to the financial carnage.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, and other legislative Democrats last week called for a special session of the Legislature to address mortgage foreclosures. The Democrats unveiled a package of proposals to address the crisis, including measures to tighten restrictions on lending practices.

Such proposals would do little to stem the tide of foreclosures, however. Government cannot change the terms of existing loans; only lenders and borrowers can agree to restructure the loans, which many are already doing. The legislation could only affect future mortgages, not the many loans in danger of default now.

And existing mortgages are the real crisis, especially the higher-cost subprime loans offered to people with poor credit. Democrats said foreclosures on subprime loans from 2005-06 could cost the state $3 billion in property taxes and $1 billion in sales and transfer taxes. Foreclosures have hit the Inland region at a rate of 1 out of every 43 homes since July, and a report released last week by the U.S. Conference of Mayors said the housing slump could cost the region $2.3 billion.

But about all politicians can really do is inform borrowers of their rights and cajole lenders into renegotiating payment terms. Gov. Schwarzenegger’s November agreement with four lenders, for example, mostly amounted to a promise to freeze interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages to keep homeowners out of default. And that voluntary effort only covers about a fourth of the 500,000 subprime loans in California.

The Democrats’ proposals include ending incentives for lenders to push high-cost subprime loans onto borrowers who could qualify for cheaper mortgages, and requiring lenders to verify that a borrower has the means to repay a loan. And the package includes a ban on prepayment penalties — fees on borrowers for repaying a loan early, which discourage refinancing.

But reining in abusive lending practices is not as clear-cut as politicians might think. Many of the mortgage deals now under scrutiny exist to help more people qualify for money to buy homes. Restrictions that protect consumers at the expense of drying up credit would deprive many Californians of any chance to own a home.

Nor does government have the responsibility rescue people from their own reckless financial decisions. Not everyone facing foreclosure is a victim of unethical lenders; some just exercised poor judgment.

The issue calls for a light touch and a carefully calibrated balance, neither of which has been a hallmark of California’s polarized Legislature.

The surge in foreclosures creates heavy personal and public costs, certainly. But wise legislators will understand that government can at best be only a bit player in this tragedy, and will not dangerously overplay their role.

[hipmatt]

http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_D_op_05_ed_mortgage1.96e1.html

10:00 PM PST on Tuesday, December 4, 2007

The same California Legislature that failed this year to fix the state’s prison system, water supply and budget now wants to solve the home mortgage crisis. But legislators need to realize that government has only limited power to forestall foreclosures — and that political grandstanding could easily add to the financial carnage.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, and other legislative Democrats last week called for a special session of the Legislature to address mortgage foreclosures. The Democrats unveiled a package of proposals to address the crisis, including measures to tighten restrictions on lending practices.

Such proposals would do little to stem the tide of foreclosures, however. Government cannot change the terms of existing loans; only lenders and borrowers can agree to restructure the loans, which many are already doing. The legislation could only affect future mortgages, not the many loans in danger of default now.

And existing mortgages are the real crisis, especially the higher-cost subprime loans offered to people with poor credit. Democrats said foreclosures on subprime loans from 2005-06 could cost the state $3 billion in property taxes and $1 billion in sales and transfer taxes. Foreclosures have hit the Inland region at a rate of 1 out of every 43 homes since July, and a report released last week by the U.S. Conference of Mayors said the housing slump could cost the region $2.3 billion.

But about all politicians can really do is inform borrowers of their rights and cajole lenders into renegotiating payment terms. Gov. Schwarzenegger’s November agreement with four lenders, for example, mostly amounted to a promise to freeze interest rates on adjustable rate mortgages to keep homeowners out of default. And that voluntary effort only covers about a fourth of the 500,000 subprime loans in California.

The Democrats’ proposals include ending incentives for lenders to push high-cost subprime loans onto borrowers who could qualify for cheaper mortgages, and requiring lenders to verify that a borrower has the means to repay a loan. And the package includes a ban on prepayment penalties — fees on borrowers for repaying a loan early, which discourage refinancing.

But reining in abusive lending practices is not as clear-cut as politicians might think. Many of the mortgage deals now under scrutiny exist to help more people qualify for money to buy homes. Restrictions that protect consumers at the expense of drying up credit would deprive many Californians of any chance to own a home.

Nor does government have the responsibility rescue people from their own reckless financial decisions. Not everyone facing foreclosure is a victim of unethical lenders; some just exercised poor judgment.

The issue calls for a light touch and a carefully calibrated balance, neither of which has been a hallmark of California’s polarized Legislature.

The surge in foreclosures creates heavy personal and public costs, certainly. But wise legislators will understand that government can at best be only a bit player in this tragedy, and will not dangerously overplay their role.

[hipmatt]

ARTY.. lol Michelle is a racist ..lol, she is one of the sharpest voices out there and has a rapidly growing fan base. a conservative, sure, a hypocrite, a racist, no. you are a joke Arty.

[hipmatt]

ARTY.. lol Michelle is a racist ..lol, she is one of the sharpest voices out there and has a rapidly growing fan base. a conservative, sure, a hypocrite, a racist, no. you are a joke Arty.

[hipmatt]

ARTY.. lol Michelle is a racist ..lol, she is one of the sharpest voices out there and has a rapidly growing fan base. a conservative, sure, a hypocrite, a racist, no. you are a joke Arty.

[hipmatt]

ARTY.. lol Michelle is a racist ..lol, she is one of the sharpest voices out there and has a rapidly growing fan base. a conservative, sure, a hypocrite, a racist, no. you are a joke Arty.

[Author]

Posts