mortgage relief

Foreclosure Moratorium Would Impose Huge Losses on Taxpayers

by Hans Bader on October 27, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Legal

“Taxpayers and the federal government would be among the biggest losers if officials heed calls from some legislators and homeowners rights groups to stop millions of foreclosures across the country because of possible paperwork problems,” reports the Washington Times. “The Treasury Department is majority owner of one of the biggest mortgage companies, Ally Financial, formerly GMAC.”

“Despite much political posturing over improperly assigned foreclosure documents, ‘robo’ signatures and other irregularities . . . there does not appear to be any substantive questions’ about the legal rights of banks and investors to foreclose against long-delinquent homeowners in most cases,” said Ed Pinto, a mortgage analyst and former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae (a position he held back in the days before it began buying up and mislabeling vast numbers of subprime mortgage loans, leading to its current taxpayer bailout).

A moratorium would also impose huge losses on investors and retired people.  As noted earlier, if your 401(K) has shrunken recently, it may be due to falling bank stocks, like Bank of America stock, which has fallen from over $19 a share to less than $12 a share over the last six months.   Many if not most 401(K)s indirectly own Bank of America stock, through their mutual fund holdings.  Its stock value has fallen due to the possibility that paperwork errors and securitization may thwart repossession of homes though foreclosure.   Law professor Richard Epstein says a halt to foreclosures would be a disaster for “prudent borrowers and lenders,” while AOL’s Marty Robins says it would delay “economic recovery” and increase mortgage “interest rates.”  A news story illustrated the negative ripple effects of halting foreclosures.  Bank of America also reported a $10 billion loss due to restrictions on debit cards contained in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, restrictions that will also harm consumers.

New Federal Program Kills Jobs, While Costing Taxpayers Half a Billion Dollars

by Hans Bader on January 11, 2010

in Agriculture, Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Employment, Energy, Environment, Ethanol, Global Warming, International, Natural Resources, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere

A federal biofuels program enacted in the name of fighting global warming and reducing dependence on foreign oil is instead killing jobs while perhaps doing more harm than good and costing taxpayers half a billion dollars, reports the Washington Post.

“It sounded like a good idea: Provide…government money to convert wood shavings and plant waste into renewable energy.” But it is now killing jobs by “driving up the price of raw timber, undermining an industry that…used sawdust and wood shavings to make affordable cabinetry.”  Meanwhile, “the Biomass Crop Assistance Program…has mushroomed into a half-a-billion dollar subsidy.” It’s a “Biomass Blunder,” says environmental law professor Jonathan Adler.

At least this program isn’t resulting in malnutrition and death, unlike ethanol mandates and subsidies, which cause starvation and unrest in the Third World.  Ron Bailey writes about the “global food crisis” that has resulted in food riots across the world, including countries like Mexico, Pakistan, Indonesia, Yemen, Haiti, and Egypt.  The crisis, he noted, is caused by “stupid energy policies” in the form of ethanol “mandates” and subsidies, which result in the world’s farmers producing less food and more ethanol.

Food rioting spread throughout Haiti in 2008, endangering the government of its “U.S.-backed president”:  “A desperate appeal from the president Wednesday failed to restore order to Haiti’s shattered capital, and bans of looters sacked stores, warehouses, and government offices.”   The government responded with tear gas and bullets, as this video shows. Food riots also occurred in Ivory Coast and El Salvador.

As the Washington Post earlier noted, “the increasing use of land to produce ethanol” “has led demand for food to outstrip supply.”

In the U.S., “The federal government’s love affair with ethanol subsidies drove up food prices, depleted plains-state aquifers, and subsidized the destruction of water fowl habitat.”

For all this cost, ethanol subsidies do not even reduce net greenhouse gas emissions.  Indeed, ethanol subsidies threaten to cause an enormous amount of environmental damage, deforestation, and soil erosion. For this and other reasons, the New York Times advocates getting rid of ethanol subsidies.

Wheat production is down in the world’s breadbaskets, like the United States, as farmland shifts away from wheat to ethanol production.  In Egypt, a major wheat importer, the fall in worldwide wheat production has triggered bread shortages and unrest as poor people find it difficult to get enough to eat.  The unrest is strengthening support for Islamic extremists opposed to Egypt’s relatively pro-American government.

Many Afghans, facing higher food prices, now have little choice but to grow opium to pay for food: the Soviet invasion and occupation destroyed their irrigation works (and roads), making large-scale food production and transport extremely difficult. And when food prices went up in 2006 and 2007 as a result of ethanol mandates and rising demand for food in India and China, thousands of Afghan children starved to death.

Harmful ethanol subsidies and mandates are likely to expand, thanks to Obama and congressional leaders.  In 2008, Obama repeatedly attacked John McCain for opposing ethanol subsidies, which McCain opposed as a form of corporate welfare for powerful corporations like ADM.

Obama backs expanded ethanol subsidies contained in a huge cap-and-trade carbon tax bill that would do little to protect the environment, while costing the economy trillions. The cap-and-trade bill was pushed through the House before its text even became available. The bill was over 1090 pages long and contained special interest giveaways to a legion of big corporations and their lobbyists. At the last minute, 300 more pages were added to the bill that few in Congress had even read, and had to be manually inserted into the existing 1000 pages after the bill was passed, based on guesses about where those pages would fit in. Thus, the bill did not even really exist at the time it was passed.

In 2008, Obama privately admitted to a San Francisco Chronicle reporter that his cap-and-trade carbon tax would cause people’s electric bills to “skyrocket.” The cap-and-trade bill supported by Obama would lead to big tax increases, administration officials privately have conceded, even though they publicly claim otherwise. “Officials at the Treasury Department think cap-and-trade legislation would cost taxpayers hundreds of billion in taxes, according to internal documents circulated within the agency and provided to the Washington Times” by CEI. It could raise household taxes by $1761 per year, equivalent to a 15 percent tax increase. It would also result in “loss of steel, paper, aluminum, chemical, and cement manufacturing jobs.”

The cap-and-trade bill will do little to cut greenhouse gas emissions, since it contains so many special interest giveaways and environmentally-destructive provisions like subsidies for ethanol.  Instead, notes the Examiner, it will result in massive destruction of the Earth’s forests.  Although the bill’s supporters claim it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, it may perversely increase them by driving industry overseas to places where there are fewer air pollution curbs, resulting in dirtier air.

Meanwhile, Obama has thwarted more use of nuclear energy, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions, by blocking use of the Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste disposal site after billions of dollars in taxpayer money had already been spent developing it.

In other news, a $75 billion Obama mortgage bailout program is actually harming the economy, the housing market, and the construction industry, economists and real estate experts say.  Nobel-Prize winning economist Gary Becker says that Obama’s policies in general are harming the economy.  The $800 billion stimulus package has failed to stem rising unemployment, while reducing the size of the economy over the long run.

Congress Mulls More Credit Card Restrictions, in Legislation Likely to Backfire on Consumers

by Hans Bader on January 5, 2010 · 3 comments

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Sanctimony

Some in Congress want to impose interest rate ceilings on credit cards and restrictions on interchange fees.  Australia tried the same thing, and it backfired, harming consumers by forcing credit card companies to increase annual fees on responsible credit cardholders and scale back rewards programs.  (Ironically, recent interest rate hikes are partly the product of a law recently passed by Congress, the CARD Act, which forces responsible people to bear the costs of irresponsible borrowers.)

As law professor Todd Zywicki notes in the Wall Street Journal, the proposed legislation would harm both consumers and small businesses, since it would

reduce the quantity and quality of credit cards by restricting credit availability and cutting back on product innovation or ancillary card benefits. This is exactly what happened when Australian regulators imposed price controls on interchange fees in 2003: Annual fees increased an average of 22% on standard credit cards and annual fees for rewards cards increased by 47%-77%. Card issuers also reduced the generosity of their reward programs by 23%. Innovation, especially in terms of improved security and identity-theft protection, was stalled. Card issuers also increased their efforts to attract higher-risk customers who generate interest and penalty fees to offset lower interchange revenues from lower-risk transactional users.  The most important pro-consumer innovation in payment systems of the past two decades has been the general disappearance of annual fees on most credit cards. Cardholders now carry and use multiple cards at little or no cost. The consequences for consumer choice and competition have been profound—card issuers compete for consumer business literally every time they open their wallet to make a purchase.  Annual fees are essentially a tax on card-holding. Policies that produced a return of annual fees would strangle this process of competition by making it more expensive for consumers to hold multiple cards and to switch cards easily. Small businesses, three-quarters of which rely on credit cards, would also have to pay more to maintain access to multiple credit lines, stifling the most potent engine of economic recovery.

Earlier, Congress and the President misguidedly attempted to reduce burdens on irresponsible credit card borrowers, through a new law, the CARD Act of 2009 (Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act), that backfired and resulted in the return of annual fees, bizarre interest rate hikes for some responsible borrowers, and the elimination of many cash back and rewards programs.

All these bailouts are taking their toll on the economy.  Economists and real estate experts say a $75 billion mortgage bailout program devised by the Obama administration is actually harming the economy, the housing market, and the construction industry.

Government Uses Takeover of Mortgage Giants to Deliberately Increase Their Massive Losses at Taxpayer Expense

by Hans Bader on January 5, 2010

in Bailout Watch, Economy, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Sanctimony

The Wall Street Journal notes that the Obama administration has used the federal government’s bailout of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do the exact opposite of what the federal government claimed it would do when it took them over a year ago.  It took them over in the name of winding down their risky loan portfolios, so they would stop running up losses at taxpayer expense.  But the Obama administration is deliberately making them run up huge losses to help out irresponsible borrowers who potentially might default on their mortgages.  “In today’s Washington, we suppose, it only makes sense that the companies that did the most to cause the meltdown are being kept alive to lose even more money.”

Over Christmas Eve, the Obama administration not only lifted the $400 billion limit on the bailout (and showered their CEOs with cash), but also ended “a key requirement of the 2008 bailout—that Fan and Fred begin shrinking the portfolios of mortgages they own on their own account, which total a combined $1.5 trillion.”

The Obama administration is now deliberately making them lose money:  “the government has directed both companies to pursue money-losing strategies by modifying mortgages to prevent foreclosures. . . Fannie reported last quarter that loan modifications resulted in $7.7 billion in losses.”

“Much of this is being done off the government books,” to hide the costs of the Obama administration’s record deficit spending.  And their CEOs are being paid a fortune, the Journal notes, because “Fannie and Freddie are exempt from the rules” limiting compensation at private banks.

The mortgage crisis was caused partly by the reckless government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and partly by the affordable-housing mandates imposed on them.

But Obama’s proposed financial rules overhaul does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.”

And banks will now be pressured to make even more risky loans.  The House has approved Obama’s proposal to create a politically-correct entity called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.”  The Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.  But the Administration’s proposal would direct the new agency to enforce the Community Reinvestment Act without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness.

Obama’s financial-regulation plan is “largely the product of extensive conversations” with two lawmakers responsible for the current financial mess, the corrupt Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank.

Another $75 billion in taxpayer money is already being wasted on mortgage bailouts that economists and real estate experts say is actually harming the economy and the real estate market.

Obama administration promotes junky, risky mortgages at taxpayer expense, ignoring history’s lessons

by Hans Bader on October 16, 2009 · 5 comments

in Bailout Watch, Legal, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Sanctimony

George Mason University Professor Ilya Somin explains how the Obama administration is expanding the awful policies that caused the mortgage crisis, like having taxpayers effectively underwrite risky-mortgage loans by bailing out GSEs at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.  Now, the administration is stepping up Federal Housing Administration subsidies for risky, junky mortgage loans that are likely to default in large numbers.

(The Obama administration doesn’t seem to have learned history’s lessons overseas, either.  White House Communications Director Anita Dunn cites as her favorite political philosopher the Chinese communist tyrant Mao Zedong. That may explain why it has sometimes pursued left-wing policies overseas.)

President Obama is also pushing for financial regulations that reinforce the worst features of the status quo.  They would increase pressure on lenders to make the risky, low-income loans that helped spawn the financial crisis.  At the same time, they would worsen the credit crunch by shutting down banking operations known as “industrial loan corporations,” that are convenient for consumers.  Earlier, Obama backed a new law that is wiping out many credit-card rewards programs and rebates, and leading to the return of annual fees on some credit cards.

Even though Obama’s proposals would lead to even more junky loans in the future, both he and Senate banking chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) claim that his proposals would fight the “status quo.”  But they are part of the status quo.  Dodd is famously corrupt, having received sweetheart loans from the reckless, bankrupt subprime lender Countrywide, and having received a massive gift from a crook, Edward Downe, in the form of a luxurious “cottage” in Ireland he received in a “cut rate real estate deal” for hundreds of thousands of dollars less than fair market value.  Obama was the third biggest recipient in Congress of campaign contributions from the government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which went broke, costing taxpayers perhaps $200 billion.  (Fannie Mae was a corrupt bully that engaged in massive accounting fraud and used intimidation to fight reform.)

Banks will now be pressured to make even more risky, low-income loans. Obama has sent to Congress his proposal to create a politically-correct entity called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. “The agency would be in charge of enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that prods banks to make loans in low-income communities.”

Government pressure on banks to make low-income loans was a key reason for the mortgage meltdown and the financial crisis. Yet Obama’s disturbing proposal would empower the new agency to enforce the Community Reinvestment Act without regard for banks’ financial safety and soundness.  The Community Reinvestment Act was a key contributor to the financial crisis.

The mortgage crisis was also caused by the reckless government-sponsored mortgage giants (“GSEs”) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and by federal affordable-housing mandates.

But Obama’s proposed financial rules overhaul does absolutely nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, admits Obama’s Treasury secretary, tax cheat Timothy Geithner, even though he admits that “Fannie and Freddie were a core part of what went wrong in our system.”

Worse, Obama’s plan is “largely the product of extensive conversations” with two lawmakers responsible for the corrupt status quo, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, and it expands the reach of regulations that have been used by left-wing groups to extort pay-offs from banks.

Mortgage Executive Kills Himself, After Obama Makes Mortgage Giant Freddie Mac Lose Money to Bail Out Irresponsible Borrowers

by Hans Bader on April 22, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Politics as Usual, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

The chief financial officer of mortgage giant Freddie Mac committed suicide today in his basement. The Obama Administration forced Freddie Mac to run up billions of dollars in losses to bail out mortgage borrowers, including irresponsible high-income households with modest mortgages.

Until last year, Freddie Mac was a GSE — a Government Sponsored Enterprise, an entity chartered and subsidized by the federal government, but owned by private shareholders. But the federal government seized direct control of Freddie Mac last year after it ran up big losses.

Ironically, although the government took over Freddie Mac in the name of reducing its risky mortgage practices, it ended up doing just the opposite. The government made Freddie run up even bigger losses buying risky loans in an effort to artificially stimulate lending. In conduct reminiscent of Enron, federal regulators tried to prevent Freddie from disclosing to the public and the SEC how Obama’s mortgage bailout was forcing it to lose even more money.

The Government’s politically-motivated mismanagement of Freddie Mac shows why recent proposals to effectively nationalize the banks are a bad idea. Why should we trust the Administration to turn around failing companies, when the Congressional Budget Office says that the Administration’s $800 billion stimulus package will actually shrink the economy in the long run?