Tuesday, June 02, 2009

But What Might Have Worked

Leaving out an enormously important element of Obama's foreclosure prevention plan, the Washington Post opines,
A continuing steep drop in home prices combined with rising unemployment is powering a new wave of foreclosures. Unfortunately, there’s little evidence, so far, that the Obama administration’s anti-foreclosure plan will be able to stop it.
What did they leave out? Obama's plan included cram down to market value in bankruptcy, but that provision was defeated by the Senate. The Post laments that Obama's plan doesn't include "a robust anti-foreclosure plan should directly address the plight of underwater homeowners by reducing the loans’ principal balance." - um... that would have been the cram down provision that was defeated. How does the Post propose that Obama would be able to disregard that defeat and proceed with cram down as a cornerstone of his foreclosure prevention program?

The post doesn't mention cram down by name, although it does suggest that an alternative might be "a temporary program of loans or grants to help them pay [financially troubled homeowners] pay their mortgages while they look for another job." It's a Post editorial... you knew lemon socialism was going to rear its head, didn't you? If the Post truly wanted to live by its words, and its supposed support for cram down despite its concession that "mortgage industry has resisted this approach", it should be turning its sights on the mortgage industry, its lobbyists and on the senators who voted to defeat cram down. Would that be too honest?


  1. "Would that be too honest?"

    Hmmm, a plea for honesty in the MSM . . . would that be a rhetorical question?


  2. Hmm, a query about whether my question was rhetorical... would that also be a rhetorical question? ;-)


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.