In his new cover story for The New Republic, Jonathan Chait explains how feckless, parochial Democrats, working under screwy and antiquated rules, routinely derail legislation that the majority of Americans favor. Chait uses the fault lines created by Obama's budget as his case study, noting how conservative Democrats have demanded "that Obama do more to reduce the deficit while simultaneously opposing his deficit-reducing measures." Worse yet, Chait notes that these senators been rewarded by the Beltway media for their actions and elevated as "symbol[s] of fiscal rectitude."
The negotiations over Sen. Dick Durbin's mortgage modification bill are equally frustrating to watch.
Already killed three times in the Senate, the measure represents sensible reform. Allowing bankruptcy judges to reduce the principal owed on a homeowner's primary residency to the current fair market value wasn't an idea developed in some European commune. In fact, the courts can already do so on secondary properties and family farms. The profits of mortgage lenders might dip a bit, but the government wouldn't foot the bill. And considering that 14,000 Illinois homeowners received at least one foreclosure-related notice last month, the measure could help a lot of people avoid an economic disaster.
Yet it has faced consistent opposition from conservative Democrats.
In the House, a coalition of so-called Blue Dogs and New Democrats -- including Illinois' own Rep. Melissa Bean -- worked to limit the bill's scope before it was eventually passed with cosmetic changes. Now, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and his happy band of small state Democrats have signaled that Durbin's bill doesn't satisfy their belief in "fiscal responsibility." And Majority Leader Harry Reid has declared that he will drop the provision if it threatens Senate passage of the overall banking bill.
To be clear, the obstructionists aren't protecting their constituents, but rather their most influential campaign donors. Serving as the voice of Beltway reason may go over well among political consultants and corporate PACs, but everyday Americans don't care about the interests of the mortgage industry -- they want to keep their homes. Thanks to the expanded use of the filibuster (requiring a supermajority on every controversial vote), these small state Democrats now yield disprortionate power.
Before Reid takes Durbin's bill off the table again, leaders in Washington should take the train up to Philly, where judges have been given the right to modify mortgages. Strangely, the economy hasn't collapsed as a result:
[W]hat's happening in Philadelphia might change the minds of both bankers and policymakers. Judges there now require delinquent homeowners and their lenders to talk in mediation before the sheriff can auction off a home. Of the 2,300 homeowners who've participated, 4 out of 5 still have their homes. Philadelphia's experience shows what happens when the lender and homeowner know a judge could take a seat at the negotiating table. That's what bankruptcy judges could do if they were given the power to modify loans.
Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user Tony Bracjun.







Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/01/2009 - 22:42
The real issue is not whether this proposed cramdown power for bankruptcy judges is a good idea for homes just as for cacation homes, yachts, etc:
the issue is whether cramdowns should be made RETROACTIVELY available for loans made by lenders who relied on their NOT being cramdowns for thoes past loans-- and who should pay for it..
Of course consumers favor cramdowns-- they would also favor not having to pay other debts too. The lenders oppose them because they will lose even more on the loans than they are already losing in foreclosure-- in foreclosure the lenders get the fair market value of the collateral, but in cram down they get merely a renewed PROMISE to pay the fair market value with a chance for even more losses when some of the borrowers ultinately won't be able to pay even the crammed down debt.
.
It's great to give assitance to troubled borrowers - but it's wrong to just take the money from the lenders to pay to the borrowers.
The borrowers who can't afford their loans should get slashed interest rates and longer time to pay, but if the public wants to give then a retroactive price cut in their home purchases, let the public pay for it thorugh a borrowers' "bailout" to match the banks' "bailout"-- in both cases using federal funds, in both cases with the taxpayers sharing in the baailed out bank or homeowner's future profits to compensate for the risk, and not just conveniently charging the cost to the lenders.,