Truthout Original

Low-Income Renters to Pay for Housing Bailout

»

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo

    Unfortunately, that is not a joke. This appears to be the latest gem to come from our leaders in Congress.

    Just to remind everyone of where things stand, Congress was wrestling with the situation of several million low- and moderate-income families, who are facing foreclosures on their homes. The main problem here is that they were pushed to buy over-priced homes in bubble-inflated markets. Making matters worse, many of these homeowners were also the victims of subprime mortgage scams. They got loans that started with relatively low teaser rates. These rates then reset, typically after two years, to much higher rates that made the mortgages unaffordable.

    This is bad news not only for the homeowners facing the loss of their homes, but also for the banks that will take large losses foreclosing on homes that now sell for much less than the money owed on the mortgage. Congress' answer to this problem is a complex bailout scheme in which it would have the Federal Housing Authority guarantee new lower interest rate mortgages.

    The new mortgages would pay off the first mortgages at 85 percent of the appraised value of the house. While the banks will still lose money under this plan, they will almost certainly end up much better off than if the situation was just left to the market. In fact, since the banks decide which loans get into the program, it is virtually guaranteed that they will come out ahead.

    Homeowners can benefit also, in that many will be able to stay in their homes with more affordable mortgages. However, in many of the bubble-inflated markets such as San Diego, Los Angeles and Boston, the new mortgages are still likely to cost far more than renting comparable units, draining money away from other necessary expenses, such as health care and child care.

    Furthermore, since prices are still falling rapidly in these areas, it is unlikely these homeowners will ever accumulate equity. For homeowners in these bubble-inflated areas, the banks will be the main beneficiaries of this bailout.

    It would be possible to prevent this problem by restricting the guarantee prices to some multiple of rents. Rents never got out of line with fundamentals even at the peak of the bubble. For example, if the guarantee price was set at a multiple of 15 times the appraised rent on a property, it would offer greater assurance the homeowner was not paying too much on their mortgage and might also accumulate some equity in their home.

    Congress has shown little interest in ensuring the new guarantee prices reflect fundamentals, making it likely many of the people "helped" under the program will end up facing foreclosure a second time. However, to make matters worse, they came up with the idea of financing the plan by taking away a stream of funding that had been dedicated to help low-income renters.

    That's right; Congress wants to take away money from low-income renters to help bankers that made bad loans in the housing bubble. As we all know, when the banks are in trouble, it is not the time to talk about the free market.

    The real painful part of this story is it would be very easy to help the real victims in this story: the low- and moderate-income homeowners, who were suckered into buying homes at bubble-inflated prices with bad mortgages. Congress could just temporarily change the rules on foreclosure to allow moderate-income homeowners facing foreclosure the option to stay in their home paying the fair market rent.

    This would provide these families with housing security. At least as important, it is likely to result in many of these families remaining in their houses as homeowners, since banks will have a strong incentive to negotiate new terms on mortgages in order to avoid becoming landlords. And the best part of this story is that families would benefit from this change the moment Congress passed the law. There is no need for a new bureaucracy or any taxpayer dollars.

    That is what Congress would do if it was serious about helping families facing foreclosure. Unfortunately, the banks seem to rank higher in its concerns - remember, just three years ago, it made the bankruptcy laws more stringent (applied retroactively), to boost bank profits.

    Apparently, the banks rank so high Congress is even prepared to take money away from low-income renters to meet their needs. Stealing candy from babies would be a step up for this crew.

»


Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer" (www.conservativenannystate.org). He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues. You can find it at the American Prospect's web site.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live.

What is all this talk about,

What is all this talk about, "The American Dream?" I saw this term mentioned a few times as I was reading through the comments. Just in case there are those of you out there who have been comatose all your lives while living in America; I will make this short and sweet, "The American Dream" has been a sham and a big fat lie since 1492, through 1776, and is still spreading like cancer in the minds of "Americans" in 2008. I believe the main stage of deregulation started under the Reagan administration, pushed onto the Senate floor by a senator, a "Democrat." The deregulation I am referring to was the deregulation of the S&L's/Savings and Loans. This deregulation led to floodgates of politicians and organized crime(i.e. other politicians) pulling off money laundering schemes and embezzlement. Furthermore it allowed the CIA and Oliver North along with Reagan and papa Bush to launder money made from cocaine trafficking and arms dealing, with a lot of the profit coming from crack-cocaine which the CIA pushed and hustled in America's inner cities. But that was the poor's problem, or maybe some people would think it was a black problem; either way the so-called tax paying American or the Middle-Class American was not saying anything about it until the sh.. landed on the Middle-Class' door step and now there is moaning and groaning of- unfair, unjust, un-American. Yet, there was silence when Native American lands(The Western Hemisphere) were taken away, or blacks could not by homes due to the rigging of lending practices such as redlining, or when the Japanese had all their homes and belongings stripped away, then thrown into Internment Camps/Racial Prisons. But now all of a sudden there is this huge uproar. Is it because white middle-class America is now starting to smell the stench of American capitalism. Is it because now when they stepped out onto their front porch they stepped into a pile free-market. Or maybe the uproar is due to a majority Democrat Congress, still sticking that shaft up your %&#@. A shaft maybe some of you thought only came from Republicans. So now what? Do we just stand here and look at each other and point fingers saying, "Well its their fault. They should have known they couldn't afford "The American Dream." Hence, disregarding and not wanting to see that the whole sub-prime lending ordeal was a scam in the first place and was pulled-off because everyone bought into the lie of "The American Dream" believing that in this land of the free "The Dream" really existed. Now everybody is going to get taken for a ride, especially the poor. But hey that's what made this country great in the first place, oppressing the poor. Welcome to my world middle-class, you should have known you were only one paycheck away from moving in next door to me in the inner-city ghetto. And to the poor and those who are on fixed incomes, and have lost or are losing their homes my heart goes out to you. And all I can say in closing is, When the people stormed Frankenstein's castle the monster came out. To the rest of the gung-ho American fools its time you woke up and smelled the United States' bull.... and take notice of America's "Bottom Line."

I agree with you both, I

I agree with you both, I believe unreasonable interest rates and all these penalties, if people pay late , not due to anything they've done are going to hurt people, take for example pay day loans who have been said to charge people up to 800% in interest and penalties if they don't make the payment on time. Bank deregulation if I remember correctly, started in the 90's so that cannot be pinned on Bush's presidency, even though he doesn't make things easier by encouraging the same practices, regulation is now an obscene word but gee now it's ok, to let people eat tainted food ,use drugs that are not FDA approved, buy inferior and possibly dangerous products due to deregulation. So you can see why I would say they carried the deregulation thing too far to the other extreme. Now corporations can raise your credit card interest rate to above 30% even if you paid your bills on time and have good credit. My ex-husband was shocked when they raised his to 34% even though he has paid his bills on time, these practice will not help the American people, it will increase the burden of debt on them , forcing many to collapse financially. Now are banks smart to do that, no because they are going to force people into the poor house, and guess what these people will not be able to pay their debt. If you ask me those who run the banking industry must have some sort of mental deficency or something.... like those in our government now. They can't see the forest for the trees, Like you said it all comes back on them because they are too blinded by greed or power. Unfortunately and sadly they are destroying our country and hope and the American dream. Why should we bail out these banking institutions, do what they do to the average Americans , give them a loan, charge them interest and if they fail to pay on time , jack up those interests rates and penalties... The American taxpayer is not responsible for paying to bail them out.

Don't worry! We're all

Don't worry! We're all going to pay for this... in lost jobs, harder to get loans of all types, and increased taxes. Forget the 'Dream' You won't have a good paying job to afford a house that you won't be able to get a loan for. Factor in other costs due to energy and you can just plain forget any upward mobility. Third World status is what many will have to endure.

The problem here is that

The problem here is that often homes are a family's strongest asset, opportunity for home ownership, historically have been limited for racial and ethic minorities and low -income and disabled with big discrepancies in gender. As far as low-income renters disabled renters often pay most of the low income to keep a roof over their heads. Stakeholders need to come together to ensure that wealth-building opportunities are preserved by increasing equal access and fairness in the lending marketplace. Congressional favoritism to banks that made bad decisions is not preserving the American Dream and causing further disparity in class, race and gender issues in the housing market. If the market drops and banks lose tough break! Abusive Sub-prime lender targets certain disadvantage families and people and threatens opportunities for the entire community especially when these loans came at an inflated cost--it undermined traditional economic security. The money that is going to bankers that is now not invested in the community has wider ramifications. Transparency and fairness has not been this congressional session’s strong suit. The housing market that is expected to drop another 30% it then would even out things. Low-income people (are 70- 80%) of the population may be able to have the security, the real national security that has been taken by free market speculators. If the voice of the lower middle class is not heard in this issue. It threatens the last bastion of having a democracy that was intended by the originators of this country. Equality was central to the nation’s founding, Voice embraces democracy and Security is vital to human dignity. Don’t take that away from the people there may be a revolution at hand. If history is any indicator for it was the very premise for the American Revolution—perhaps its time for a rewrite.

The problem here is that

The problem here is that often homes are a family's strongest asset, opportunity for home ownership, historically have been limited for racial and ethic minorities and low -income and disabled with big discrepancies in gender. As far as low-income renters disabled renters often pay most of the low income to keep a roof over there head. Stakeholders need to come together to ensure that wealth-building opportunities are preserved by increasing equal access and fairness in the lending marketplace. Congressional favoritism to banks that made bad decisions is not preserving the American Dream and causing further disparity in class, race and gender issues in the housing market. If the market drops and banks lose tough break! Abusive Sub-prime lender targets certain disadvantage families and people and threatens opportunities for the entire community especially when these loans came at an inflated cost--it undermined traditional economic security. The money that is going to bankers that is now not invested in the community has wider ramifications. Transparency and fairness has not been this congressional session’s strong suit. The housing market that is expected to drop another 30% it then would even out things. Low-income people (are 70- 80%) of the population may be able to have the security, the real national security that has been taken by free market speculators. If the voice of the lower middle class is not heard in this issue. It threatens the last bastion of having a democracy that was intended by the originators of this country. Equality was central to the nation’s founding, Voice embraces democracy and Security is vital to human dignity. Don’t take that away from the people there may be a revolution at hand. If history is any indicator for it was the very premise for the American Revolution—perhaps its time for a rewrite.

Here is something a person

Here is something a person with common sense knows never try to live beyond your means if you can't afford it. First of all there is a shortage of low income housing for people with low incomes including low income workers, the elderly and disabled, who often pay 30% of their income or more to even be able to rent these "low income rentals." Ideally no one should pay more than a 1/4 of his income to housing, but this is not a perfect scenario. Now I agree that the lending practices of these lenders,no. But that has alot to do with deregulation thanks to the government who seems to think that companies should not be accountable for their practices and should just have free reign no matter what. And now we see the results of that. But a certain amount of regulation is good I think because not all companies are responsible or will police themselves. But of course now that any type of regulation is now a dirty word , we see how deregulation may have gone to far to the other extreme and things now are out of control. And now the government is being the predatory now, taking from the poorest to benefit those who have more and the lending companies. Perhaps we see how their sense of ethics ties into it. Either that or dump it on the average American tax payer.. pity us, when we have such wrong head priorities.

Stick it to the little guy .

Stick it to the little guy .

I don't think it is really

I don't think it is really fair for low income renters to take the the "dump" for all this. Sorry but they shouldn't have to foot the bill. They didn't do the lending or sign on the dotted line. There are people who do get in over their heads by buying homes they cannot really afford as well. Now make people who can barely make ends meet and don't usually have the same shot at the American dream pay for it? what is that saying? Rob Peter to pay Paul?????????

ouch. that was harsh. While

ouch. that was harsh. While it's true that suckers shouldn't necessarily glean pity solely based on the fact that they've been had, I don't necessarily agree that a "you signed it, so it's your fault too" mentality is always appropriate. Picture this: You've always dreamed of owning your own home, but you never thought you could afford it. One day you open your mailbox to find that "You qualify for a mortgage of up to $200,000!" You investigate this, and, trusting a bank (as a bank should be somewhat trustworthy), decide to ink the dotted line and get your home. Meanwhile, the loan officer has sold your mortgage up the chain to Wall Street with other more secure mortgages in those nice little NINA packages, and a bank that would have never before bought your loan has now done so. You were a risk, but no one told you that. Then the bills come in, but they are higher than you were initially told because no one explained to you the dangers of a variable rate - in fact, just the opposite. So you default on your first payment, sending your rate skyrocketing and the bank into a panic. Then the economy collapses and shakes the world. Rinse and repeat. Where is the line between where it's the lender's fault and where it's the borrower's fault? How much should a borrower be able to trust a lender? My opinion is that banks and big business in this country has become more concerned with making a buck than treating their fellow humans with respect. I don't feel the need to blame the borrower for the banks' cut throat decisions. I'm just glad they all finally got into trouble.

as a renter, i kind of feel

as a renter, i kind of feel like going to great lengths to 'keep families in their homes' is not really fair. how does being a sucker entitle people to own houses they can't afford, while those of us who responsibly keep paying the rent (hoping perhaps one day to own a house) get nothing, and even pay (via tax dollars) for them to have houses? at the same time, i do agree that the bank handouts are absurd and unconscionable. the banks and the suckered "homeowners" should both pay the price. there's always major economic fraud w/ GOP administrations. housing was obviously this one's chosen avenue. i have no sympathy for either side.

Add a comment:

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.