« "Button" | Main | Studs Terkel on May Day »
DINO attack!
All of the ballyhoo about Arlen Specter switching parties and the likelihood (assuming Al Franken is finally allowed to assume the Senate seat which is rightly his) that the Democrats will gain a filibuster-proof 60-member Senate majority obscures one critical fact: the Dems rarely vote as a unified bloc anyway, thanks to moderates and pseudo-Republicans like Joe Lieberman who lurk within the ranks. The latest example? Today, Twelve Democrats broke ranks and voted against an amendment (introduced by Illinois' Dick Durbin) which would have allowed bankruptcy judges to modify terms of homeowners' mortgages to avoid foreclosure and allow them to stay in their homes. The moderates, or Democrats In Name Only, once again caved in to the banking industry (which you might think is so disgraced these days that it wields no influence whatsoever) and gave Wall Street exactly what it wanted.
I'm not surprised that the Republicans (a/k/a the Commerce Party) voted unanimously against the amendment, but if your Senator happens to be named Baucus, Bennet, Byrd, Carper, Dorgan, Johnson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson, Pryor, Specter or Tester, please feel free to send them a nastygram, thanking them for once again kowtowing to powerful business interests at the expense of the everyday people who put them in office.
“What we’re talking about here are people who don’t have any paid lobbyists,” Mr. Durbin said, speaking of homeowners in financial trouble. “What they’re counting on are people, senators in this chamber who will stand up for them. The bankers don’t want this. They hate the Durbin amendment like the devil hates holy water.”
Senators standing up to Wall Street? Thanks for tilting at windmills, Senator.
Update: Another sharp comment from Durbin, via Think Progress:
At some point the senators in this chamber will decide the bankers shouldn't write the agenda for the United States Senate. At some point the people in this chamber will decide the people we represent are not the folks working in the big banks, but the folks struggling to make a living and struggling to keep a decent home.
Again, thank you, Senator.
April 30, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
At some point, idiots in congress will realize that unelected, unaccountable judges should not be given unchecked power to rewrite mortgages for irresponsible lendees. The bank's own those houses until the debts are starified, so inferring that they shouldn't have a say is beyong ignorant.
Posted by: jpmzo at Apr 30, 2009 7:01:02 PM
Furthermore, I can't type for s**t!
Posted by: jpmzo at Apr 30, 2009 7:02:12 PM
I second the comment above...I applaud the moderate democrats for striking down a measure which would essentially allow judges to void mortgage contracts for borrowers who were just plain irresponsible. What balancing force will keep people from borrowing beyond their means if they have no threat of losing there house if they default on their mortgage? This isn't senators being "owned" by banking interests...this is common sense.
Posted by: wheelema at May 1, 2009 8:32:24 AM
Yes, many borrowers were irresponsible, borrowing far beyond their means. But the banks were just as irresponsible, handing out loans to anyone who came along like it was Monopoly money, doing little or no due diligence on the borrowers to reasonably determine whether or not the banks would ever be repaid. In doing so, the banks helped create a housing bubble which, when it collapsed, caused our economy to come crashing down, a terrible situation from which it will take years to fully recover.
I'm not saying that delinquent borrowers should be completely relieved of their debt. Of course they should still have to pay what they can afford. But the banks should feel some of the hurt, too. The banks are already getting billions of dollars of bailout money from taxpayers, so for the good of society they should accept lower returns or even some losses on their loans. So let the courts renegotiate some mortgages (but only for borrowers who, in good faith, fully intend to pay their debt) and relax some of the terms - lower the rate slightly, extend the maturity - to make the payments more affordable and keep people in their homes. The borrowers still have to pay a significant amount, but the banks also have to accept some losses as the price of their irresponsible lending.
Foreclosure does nobody any good. People lose their homes and have their lives disrupted and their households often broken up as they find a new place to live. Banks are stuck with huge inventories of empty houses that they can't sell - and since they're not good at property management or real estate brokerage, they have to pay some third party good money to do those tasks for them, money which would be better spent making new (but sound) loans or shoring up their capital bases. Neighborhoods suffer as vacancies rise, as property values decline and crime increases. Municipalities see their property tax income decrease as assessed values decline.
Renegotiating mortgages won't completely fix these problems. But it should lessen the hurt somewhat, and be better for all of us.
Posted by: Pete at May 2, 2009 6:49:52 AM
You guys do realize that first home mortgages are the ONLY type of loan that judges can't modify in a bankruptcy proceeding, right?
At least try to do some research before you either give an uninformed opinion or repeat talking points you've heard or read.
Posted by: Mark at May 2, 2009 4:36:19 PM
I don't have much to say about the mortgage crisis, as I'm still a renter and have been untouched by the recession. About Specter switching parties, I think he did that only because it's no longer cool to call yourself a Republican. I'm a registered Democrat, but I don't think it's good to have Dems controlling both the executive and legislative branches of government. We all know what happens when we have a single-party majority. And as you rightly pointed out, being a Democrat doesn't necessarily mean a congressman or -woman will vote Democrat. I guess I'm looking at the symbolism: is a total Democratic majority, even if only in name, really the antidote to the past Republican majority?
For all the talk of a filibuster-proof majority, the Democrats are still a very fractured party, with its own dissidents. And I think they still have a long way to go if they want to prove they're capable of getting the country back on track. If history repeats itself, look for Republicans to pick up seats during mid-term elections. And that's not as scary as some might think. It's only scary when we have a single party in both Congress and the Oval Office, be it Republican or Democrat. I believe in checks and balances far more than I believe in political parties.
Posted by: Brandon at May 7, 2009 6:49:07 PM
