This Vote Has Been Brought to You by The U.S. Chamber of Commerce c/o Michael Bennet

h/t (0.00 / 0)

to that anonymous, good-looking man who always knows what a lady needs to drink, and then buys it for her.

---

by: sufimarie @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 00:40:47 AM CDT

Here is Sen. Bennet's explanation (4.00 / 2)

Dear Supporter,

Colorado homeowners need real help right now. That's why I am proud to have voted for the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, which will help middle class families stay in their homes. This Act takes real action to stem the tide of foreclosures, assist homeowners and strengthen our housing sector. This legislation will also help homeowners by making it easier for lenders to modify mortgages.

Earlier, I voted against one amendment to the overall bill, the Durbin amendment, also known as "cramdown." I voted against this amendment for three simple reasons -- it was not tailored narrowly enough to those who need it most, it would have raised interest rates, and it would have slowed down the housing recovery. The last thing working families and our fragile economy needs to face is higher interest rates.

Thousands of Colorado families continue to be at risk of losing their homes and financial ruin as a result of unscrupulous lending practices over the past few years. They need our help now to protect their futures. That's why I voted against this specific amendment that would have given debt relief to people with million dollar homes, and would likely cause a spike in interest rates that could cripple the housing recovery.

And that is why I have taken on the credit card industry and in March, I placed the deciding vote for passage of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act out of committee. Endorsed by virtually every consumer protection organization, the legislation will protect consumers from confusing, misleading and predatory practices by credit card companies. I am now working with Senator Udall to ensure that the legislation passes the Senate.

Sincerely,

Michael Bennet

Be a community organizer, sign-up at East Denver Neighborhood Volunteers for Change.

---

by: davewolfusa @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 11:51:14 AM CDT

Does anyone know what the "higher interest rates" rationale (if any) is? (4.00 / 1)

Or if there is any validity to it?

Be a community organizer, sign-up at East Denver Neighborhood Volunteers for Change.

---

by: davewolfusa @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 11:56:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not that I'm aware of (4.00 / 1)

Sounds like Senatorial CYA motions to me.

It was valid for primary residences worth less than 700,000-something dollars.  I know you can get a really, really nice house for $700,000 - but it was the primary residence part that was needed. As it stands, people with 2 or more properties can get them crammed-down.  What's good for the elite isn't good for the masses.

I don't see how it could have resulted in higher interest rates: to the contrary, without cramdown, there is no incentive for a bank to lower an interest rate if they determine that it would cost them more than the $4,000 government bonus they would get for doing so. Remember: banks exist to make profit, not make sure people stay in their houses after struggling with a recession they didn't create. Banks retained ultimate control on primary mortgages for millions of Americans.  Sen. Bennet would rather succumb to their demands than represent Coloradans.

There is no housing recovery right now.  That's the problem, Sen. Bennet.  Foreclosures were temporarily slowed down.  Great.  Millions of Americans continue to lose their jobs - how are they going to avoid the same fate, especially with greedy banks refusing to voluntarily help people like the idiots in Congress expect them to.  The banks will never act in the interests of homeowners.  Only the homeowners and their duly elected representatives in government can do that. But then, Sen. Bennet was never duly elected, was he?

Even more disturbing, Sen. Bennet is engaging in what's become an honored tradition of trying to pull the wool over his constituents' eyes with a mollifying letter.  Some of your constituents know what's really going on Sen. Bennet.  Some of us won't stand for stock answers anymore - even from a "Democrat".

A Responsible Plan for Iraq: endorsed by Jared Polis

---

by: WeatherDem @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 12:36:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Easy (4.00 / 1)

The rationale is that the lenders would raise rates on new loans to make up for losses on crammed down loans. I'm sure that's true, but the competing rationale is that cramming down principal amounts reduces payment amounts, causing increases in disposable income (stimulating the retail economy) and helps stabilize housing prices by slowing the foreclosure rate.

Which situation is better on balance is really the issue. Obviously there's substantial disagreement.

---

by: janus303 @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 14:28:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

With interest rates at historic lows right now (4.00 / 1)

Wouldn't rates going up merely normalize the levels somewhat?

The Fed has been lowering interest rates for a few years now, and while I'm sure some people have gotten a good deal on houses right now, it doesn't seem to be helping to stabilize the housing market.

It seems to me that if people could start paying down some of these mortgages that are the source of the toxic assets that all of the banks are owning which is in turn causing the credit crisis, that it could have brought a sense of stability to the markets. I'm far from an expert though.

---

by: redstateblues @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 14:53:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, it all sounds like some bullshit (4.00 / 1)

The fact of the matter is that he is solely rubbing elbows with people who put their interests before the public's and more often than not, those interests directly conflict.

I don't understand how not narrowly enough tailored to help those who need it makes sense to vote against it. Is he saying the amendment would encompass those who need it and then some? Maybe I'm misinterpreting it but it seems to me like he likes the amendment, just not how broad it was?  

---

by: sufimarie @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 15:07:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would have started (4.00 / 1)

by limiting it to $300,000 houses, possibly indexed to the local median home price for markets like New York City or San Diego where the housing costs were way more inflated.

In Colorado I doubt I could find anyone in the whole state with a $700,000 house that I wouldn't classify as rich.

---

by: janus303 @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 15:22:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I just shot him an email (4.00 / 1)

I'll let you know if I get it. If I do, I will press for the details behind the three reasons.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 22:21:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good. I await with an open heart (0.00 / 0)

what he has to say.

And the 2nd quarter reports will be looked into as well.  

---

by: sufimarie @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 22:41:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I tend to agree (4.00 / 1)

I think when the history of this period is written we'll find that the housing bubble was caused by the near-zero interest rates, and the bubble was burst when we had a changing of the guard at the Fed that raised rates.

Further, I think history will show that the fundamentals of the economy were never strong in the 2000s, because if they were, the low rates should have had the whole economy overheating and it wasn't. It was better than average on the whole, but much of that was real estate, oil, and banking spiking the curve.

I think the low interest rates were masking an economy that was actually in serious trouble, and when rates went up even slightly it caused all the chickens to simultaneously come home to roost.

But we have to also remember that the toxic assets mainly consist of private, unregulated mortgages, not FHA or VA loans or--for the most part--loans owned by Fannie and Freddie, which each have their own loan modification programs already. Thus the toxic asset issue is I think distinct from the cramdown issue, though they do intersect.

---

by: janus303 @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 15:18:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that makes no sense (0.00 / 0)

The banks will charge the highest interest they can get away with regardless of what is happening with their existing loans.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 22:14:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but (4.00 / 3)

it's okay for yachts and vacation homes?  That makes sense.

---

by: johne @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 11:59:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

hellooooo Andrew (4.00 / 3)

Andrew? hear that angry rumbling out there?
are you listening?


"What's the use of a fine house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?"
Henry David Thoreau

www.praer.org

---

by: wade norris @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 12:35:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

US Chamber is also highly antui-union (0.00 / 0)

and is running the very misleading anti-EFCA ads. Does Michael Bennt listen to and believe the lies of the US Chamber of Commerce?

---

by: Zappatero @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 18:35:22 PM CDT

I guess you could say (0.00 / 0)

he "buys" them. ;)

---

by: sufimarie @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 18:38:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Translation ... (5.00 / 2)

Earlier, I voted against one amendment to the overall bill, the Durbin amendment, also known as "cramdown." I voted against this amendment for one simple reason:  the banks told me I should.

    -- Eric Johnson

Make sure your voter registration is up to date!

---

by: by foot @ Thu May 07, 2009 at 22:02:01 PM CDT