baltimoresun.com

« Prezbate II observed | Main | Generation Joe: Goog' the candidates »

McCain's liberal bailout plan

John McCain, a Republican last we checked, wants to bail out Americans on the brink of losing their homes, and he wants to put $300 billion into the effort -- wherever that figure came from. If Obama had proposed this last night, he'd be condemned as a typical big-spending, big-government liberal who wants to help the nation's losers and create a new welfare state. This might put McCain in the running for most liberal member of the Senate. Was that Theodore Roosevelt or Franklin he said he most admired?

Here's McCain: "I would order the secretary of the Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those payments and stay in their homes . . . Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy, and we've got to give some trust and confidence back to America."

Despite what Fox commentators were saying last night about how McCain's proposal was a surprise -- gee, he didn't run it by Bill Kristol first! -- a speech from McCain's web site suggests the idea has been percolating for some time. Here are excerpts from a McCain speech last March to a small-business group in California. In it, he describes the housing market collapse and suggests bailout for certain homeowners, but be warned: There are segments that might strike you as being in contradiction with that McCain said in last night's debate, starting with this statement: "I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis."

Read on . . .

John McCain Addresses the Orange County Hispanic Small Business Roundtable, March 25, 2008

A sustained period of rising home prices made many home lenders complacent, giving them a false sense of security and causing them to lower their lending standards. They stopped asking basic questions of their borrowers like "can you afford this home? Can you put a reasonable amount of money down?" Lenders ended up violating the basic rule of banking: don't lend people money who can't pay it back. Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates. There are 80 million family homes in America and those homeowners are now facing the reality that the bubble has burst and prices go down as well as up.

Of those 80 million homeowners, only 55 million have a mortgage at all, and 51 million are doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time. That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages cause this much trouble for us all?

The other part of what happened was an explosion of complex financial instruments that weren't particularly well understood by even the most sophisticated banks, lenders and hedge funds. To make matters worse, these instruments -- which basically bundled together mortgages and sold them to others to spread risk throughout our capital markets -- were mostly off balance sheets, and hidden from scrutiny. In other words, the housing bubble was made worse by a series of complex, inter-connected financial bets that were not transparent or fully understood. That means they weren't always managed wisely because people couldn't properly quantify the risk or the value of these bets. And because these instruments were bundled and sold and resold, it became harder and harder to find and connect up a real lender with a real borrower. Capital markets work best when there is both accountability and transparency. In the case of our current crisis, both were lacking.

The net result is the crisis we face. What started as a problem in subprime loans has now convulsed the entire financial system.

Let's start with some straight talk:

I will not play election year politics with the housing crisis. I will evaluate everything in terms of whether it might be harmful or helpful to our effort to deal with the crisis we face now.

I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.

In our effort to help deserving homeowners, no assistance should be given to speculators. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners, not people who bought houses for speculative purposes, to rent or as second homes. Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who were irresponsible at the expense of those who weren't. I will consider any and all proposals based on their cost and benefits. In this crisis, as in all I may face in the future, I will not allow dogma to override common sense.

When we commit taxpayer dollars as assistance, it should be accompanied by reforms that ensure that we never face this problem again. Central to those reforms should be transparency and accountability.

Homeowners should be able to understand easily the terms and obligations of a mortgage. In return, they have an obligation to provide truthful financial information and should be subject to penalty if they do not. Lenders who initiate loans should be held accountable for the quality and performance of those loans and strict standards should be required in the lending process. We must have greater transparency in the lending process so that every borrower knows exactly what he is agreeing to and where every lender is required to meet the highest standards of ethical behavior.

Policies should move toward ensuring that homeowners provide a responsible down payment of equity at the initial purchase of a home. I therefore oppose reducing the down payment requirement for FHA mortgages and believe that, as conditions allow, the down payment requirement should be raised. So many homeowners have found themselves owing more than their home is worth, because many never had much equity in the house to begin with. When conditions return to normal, GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) should never insure loans when the homeowner clearly does not have skin in the game.

 

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 4:10 AM | | Comments (6)
        

Comments

This authority already exists in the bail out package. Since McCain didn't read the plan, perhaps he doesn't know it.

Yes...the authority exists to buy up all types of bad debt. But it leaves it up to the Treasury secretary to decide who gets helped and by how much.

McCain's statement clearly addresses that fact by stating... "I would order the secretary of the Treasury...

In other words he is suggesting who, when and how much should be alloted to buying up bad mortgages.

It would seem Eldora... that in your rush to blame McCain for something...anything...you didn't bother to comprehend what you read.

I think you're both missing the point. This is a decidedly liberal idea. It's BIG government.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Sorry bunk, can't agree. There is nothing liberal or conservative about shoring up the nation's banking system. Every functioning state in the world, whether democratic, totalitarian or somewhere in between, must have a reliable banking and financial system. If not, there is chaos. Just try cashing a check or getting a loan in Somalia. In fact, the bailout legislation was supported by many Dems, Reps, liberals, conservatives and middle of the road members of Congress. They all understood the importance of trying to resolve the crisis.

In light of the ISG spa trip...I think we should take the $700 million dollars back from the treasury and spend what is needed to help the homeowners..let the rest of the greedy bunch fend for theiselves.

The current news on the bailout plan is that there are still $328 billion left in the fund that hasn't been spent. And because of that, a debate in congress could coincide on the topic of how the remaining money be spent.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Please enter the letter "c" in the field below:
About Dan Rodricks
Jan. 8, 2009, marked 30 years for Dan Rodricks' column in The Baltimore Sun. Over three decades, Dan has won numerous regional and several national awards for his reporting and commentary -- in print and on the air. "I've had opportunity to write a column and work in both radio and television, never having to leave my adopted hometown of Baltimore to have those experiences," he says. "I consider myself very fortunate." In addition to writing a twice-weekly column for The Baltimore Sun and his Random Rodricks blog, Dan is currently the host of Midday, on WYPR-FM, National Public Radio in Baltimore. An artful story-teller and social critic, he has observed local, state and national political and cultural trends for three decades, and has a lot to say about almost everything.
More on Dan Rodricks
Dan's Facebook page


Midday with Dan Rodricks
Follow @middayrodricks on Twitter
-- ADVERTISEMENT --

Dan Rodricks' columns
Recent columns Rodricks talks about his column on NPR
Dear drug dealers
Dan Rodricks' campaign to help Baltimore residents "get out of the game."
Most Recent Comments
Blog updates
Recent updates to baltimoresun.com news blogs
 Subscribe to this feed