Outrageous!

Ladies and gentlemen! I give H.R. 1106 and (S 896) -- Helping families save their homes act of 2009.

To prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability. Here's some of the text from the bill:

SEC. 100. DEFINITION.
Section 101 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (43) the following (and make such technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
‘(43A) The term ‘qualified loan modification’ means a loan modification agreement made in accordance with the guidelines of the Obama Administration’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan as implemented March 4, 2009, that--
1‘(A) reduces the debtor’s payment (including principal and interest, and payments for real estate taxes, hazard insurance, mortgage insurance premium, homeowners’ association dues, ground rent, and special assessments) on a loan secured by a senior security interest in the principal residence of the debtor, to a percentage of the debtor’s income in accordance with such guidelines, without any period of negative amortization or under which the aggregate amount of the regular periodic payments would not fully amortize the outstanding principal amount of such loan;
1‘(B) requires no fees or charges to be paid by the debtor in order to obtain such modification; and
1‘(C) permits the debtor to continue to make payments under the modification agreement notwithstanding the filing of a case under this title, as if such case had not been filed.


I won't bore you with the rest of the text but, it essentially sides with the homeowners and not the banks who made the loans. Bankruptcy law currently bars modifications on primary residences, while allowing modifications for vacation homes, family farms, and yachts. The amendment would permit bankruptcy courts to restructure the debt on home mortgages by reducing the principal owed, extending the repayment period, and reducing interest rates. Under the bill, eligibility is limited to homeowners with mortgages originated before 2009 that are worth less than $625,000, 60 days delinquent, and subject to a notice that a foreclosure may be commenced.

Extending the same bankruptcy protections to primary residences that currently apply to luxury yachts and vacation homes is not only fair, but would reduce foreclosures by about 20%, according to Credit Suisse, and benefit about 800,000 households, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. Strengthened bankruptcy protection is also beneficial to middle-class families who are not themselves facing foreclosure: the 2.4 million subprime foreclosures that the Center for Responsible Lending predicts will occur in 2009 will result in a $352 billion decline in property values for homes in neighborhoods surrounding those foreclosures, with an average decrease in property value per home of $8,667.

So, this sounds like a pretty good deal, doesn't it? It's not the end all be all but it's a step in the right direction. In a time when the populous is just about ready to take up pitch forks and storm the Bastille, who in their right mind would vote against this bill? Oh, would you believe every single Republican and 12 Democrats in the Senate?

An analysis by the Center for Responsible Lending found that similar legislation would avoid 600,000 foreclosures and thus maintain $72.5 billion in wealth for families not facing foreclosure. As we all know the foreclosing of 1 home in a neighborhood brings the entire neighborhoods property value down. So, how could this have happened? How could those elected to represent their constituents vote against something so beneficial to their constituents? The answer is simple. A Senate that is bought and paid for by the financial institutions that we gave 750 billion dollars to. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), concluded that banks "frankly own the place."

These Senators need to lose their jobs.

Max Baucus (MT)
Michael Bennett (CO)
Robert Byrd (WV)
Thomas Carper (DE)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Blanche Lincoln (AR)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Mark Pryor (AR)
Arlen Specter (PA)
John Tester (MT)

A few actually expressed their reasoning for voting "No":

Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): "A number of things. I thought the 31 percent is an arbitrary number. I think there are a whole lot of folks, are likely folks, out there who have little debt outside their home who could -- I just thought it was an arbitrary number and I didn't like the way it was constructed." ( Well, that's sounds like a logical well thought out reason, Senator.)

Ben Nelson (D-Neb.): "I've not supported the cramdown for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I hate to see that authority to determine what the future contract is ceded to the court." (Really? You would rather have the very people who got us into this mess by predatory lending methods continue to ruin property values and receive billions from tax payers rather than let a not for profit legal authority negotiate a reasonable solution.)

Tom Carper (D-Del.): "One of the reasons why usually mortgage rates are cheaper for primary homes is that the markets have the certainty that the judge won't be invited to come in and change the terms of the mortgage." (Oh okay! But you don't have a problem with the Banks that change their credit card terms and rates without just cause, do you Senator?)

Jon Tester (D-Mont.): "I just think a deal's a deal. I have a lot of empathy for folks who tend to get led astray, but I just think it's going to create some problems -- pretty obvious, actually. I don't have to list them. I'm generally opposed. I don't think it works well." (This one really hurts DaG. I was impressed with this guy early on. Mr. Tester, while yes in a perfect world, if you made your bed then you must lie in it, but sir, we do not. and this bill did not benefit one mortgage holder while forsaking another, it helped all.)

Mary Landrieu (D-La.): "My community bankers are really opposed to it and I think it's important for people to realize there is a big difference right now in the country between the health of these large international financial institutions and our local community banks...I think we gotta be careful about adopting processes and procedures that would really hurt our community banks." (Yeah. It's very apparent whose health and well being you're concerned with, Senator.)

Isn't it interesting that the newly converted Arlen Specter voted "No" on this bill?

This is nothing more than the Financial institutions multi billion dollar lobby at work. If only the citizens of this country could afford that kind of lobby pressure (Definition of Lobby pressure = Greased palms and campaign contributions) As I've written before, greed knows no party loyalty. Neither do those with deep pockets. Trans national corporations and the "New World Order" of financial institutions simply write the checks to whichever party is in control.

Until the time comes when lobbyist are no longer allowed access to our elected officials, this kind of legislative atrocity will continue. It is clear that the corruption of our legislative body is so wide spread and entrenched that a complete overhaul is needed. Along with campaign funding reforms. As long as an incumbent senator or congress person needs to raise $10,000 a day in order to compete in the next election, or as long as challengers to their seat are allowed infinite campaign contributions . . . our politicians will be bought and paid for.

Ah, the sad truth.

Short of standing guard at capitol hill with pitch forks in hand, taring and feathering any approaching lobbyist, true change for the better will never come. I'm not one of those radical "Tea Party" time for armed revolution types but, it seems to me that we who are not very wealthy will be reduced to little more than indentured servants. Slowly by allowing the status quo and quickly if we revolt.

DaG Out