I’m sure this is all Obama’s fault, too:
In a win for the banking industry, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to reject a measure that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to change the terms of mortgages for distressed homeowners.
Known as “mortgage cramdown,” the measure was defeated in a 188-241 decision as a proposed amendment to a broader financial reform bill expected to win House passage later on Friday.
The House had approved a mortgage “cramdown” measure in March over the objections of Republicans and bank lobbyists, but it died in the Senate.
Mmm. Blue dogs. Against the bailout, against preventing another crash. The rest of the bill passed, though. Now we send it to the Senate where Presidents Lieberman, Nelson, Baucus, and Conrad can neuter it beyond recognition.
I’m sure you will be surprised to learn that Bart Stupak voted against the overall bill. Apparently one of his other firm principles beyond opposing abortion is turning a blind eye to the bankers.
Tom Levenson
I think I’m drowning in stupid today.
I have to say, one of the reasons I keep coming back here is that you guys have the stamina for this stuff I seem to have lost.
WASF
arbitrista
Well, one can’t really say that Obama has done anything to stop this from happening, has he? Maybe that’s a cheap shot, but can progressives at least be angry that Obama hasn’t PUBLICLY applied pressure on these issues? Of course we need to apply direct pressure to the Blue Dogs, but Obama hasn’t done much to inspire confidence.
Col. Klink
Do they ever lose?
Max
@arbitrista: Yeah, because all of the private meetings he has had with them don’t count.
Such bullshit what you are saying. It reminds me of when the GOP’s says, “well, he didn’t specifically say he loves America more than anything in the world and we are the bestest and he didn’t wear a rubber #1 finger in his SOTU address” and contorts it to mean he hates America.
freelancer
I need some happy. I’m all out. Go fish.
gwangung
@arbitrista: What’s the likely outcome of that on other legislation?
mk3872
@arbitrista:
You think Obama could have changed minds of Blue Dog Dems? Really? Do me a favor … buy a clue …
Napoleon
@arbitrista:
One could.
mk3872
Hmmm … let me go slide over to DailyKos & FireDogLake to see how morons there say that Obama is not the change they voted for and exclaim “Kucinich/Sanders 2012”!
Dreggas
And to make matters worse, Obama’s christmas cards don’t say Christmas!!
Stooleo
I for one, welcome our banker overlords and look forward spending the rest of my days toiling in their penny mines.
shoutingattherain
@Dreggas:
OK. This is my stop. I’m off the bus for the rest of the day. Don’t take any wooden nickels.
Yutsano
@Napoleon: Funny. Followed the link, read the Times article, saw nothing about the Obama administration opposing cramdown. In fact, it barely gets notice in the Times article but somehow that turns into Obama opposition? I’m smelling something funny here, and it ain’t the sardines.
Frank Chow
I would like to know, how the Blue Dogs and Republicans can get away with claiming they are trying to keep people in their homes?
The bankruptcy reform of 2005 protected people’s yachts or second homes this was merely giving people a chance to keep their house. It is criminal how influential the banks are in Congress today.
serge
Campaign. Finance. Reform. Now (No, Really.)
We’re at so many tipping points with war, health care, monetary infrastructure, physical infrastructure, job losses, foreclosures, lending shortages, how can these stooges, these paid lackeys justify their places in our legislature? Short answer – they can’t.
If we can’t set real, and strict rules regarding corporate contributions to legislators, then we’ll never see anything more than this endless, mindless bullshit.
PeakVT
Blue dogs. Against the bailout, against preventing another crash.
I wonder if anyone as explained to them – slowly, in short sentences with small words – that if the Congress doesn’t pass some effective legislation on a number of things, Democrats in purple seats will lose next year.
Yutsano
@PeakVT: Not if they keep buying into the meme we are a center-right nation and that’s the only way they can possibly win next year. Fuck serving your constituents.
Wile E. Quixote
@serge
Here’s my idea. Make it a felony for any member of Congress (or any politician) to accept any donation/contribution from any individual who is not eligible to vote for them. Make it a felony to donate money to politicians you are not eligible to donate to. Allow voters to sue politicians in civil court for violating this law. We don’t allow foreign nationals to buy our elections, why should we allow people who aren’t eligible to vote for a specific politician buy his election?
freelancer
Anyone out there in need of a pick me up, this song just gave me permagrin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBt9sxTailQ
MrCynical
Alternative title “Your Corporate Congress”
yes I realize there was sarcasm.
Its not liberal vs conservative or dems vs Rethugs
Its corporations vs the rest of us. One you take that view everything makes much more sense. Of course then you realize that both parties will screw us
gwangung
@Yutsano: It’s more that they’re buying into the meme that THEY are in a center right district and that’s the only possible way they can win next year.
Olly McPherson
Why the antagonistic lead?
aimai
I think talking about “the blue dogs” covers up the fact that some people that Obama could certainly have influenced–like Melissa Bean, from IL, were behind the bad provisions. We’re having this argument over at NMMNB and to me it doesn’t boil down to “what is obama doing” or not (though that’s part of it) but why don’t the Dems have a strategy vis a vis the recalcitrant/backwards/reactionary/blue dog dems. Of course they can be shut down–you make a record of all their negative votes, the votes they take in opposition to major party legislation, and you punish them for it. You refuse to work with them on their pet legislation. You deny them sponsors. You deny them DCCC money. Why shouldn’t there be a special class of legislation–party platform/brand making legislation that receives a higher level of scrutiny and support from the leadership and for which going off side or attacking dem. proposals is not permitted? Blue dogs do what blue dogs are paid to do because there’s no cost to them of doing it.
aimai
GReynoldsCT00
@freelancer:
Me too. John, how about some pets???
Napoleon
@Yutsano:
I read the article originally not today but look at the correction at the bottom of the article. Any way you cut it they flip flopped and while a Goldman Sachs partner can cram down a lender on his vacation home a trucker can not on his only home, his primary residence.
Also this from back from 1/09
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/obama-asks-house-dems-to-drop-second-liberal-priority-to-make-gop-happy/
Xanthippas
This makes total sense. Instead of people working out terms with their mortgage company via bankruptcy, they can just walk away and everybody loses.
Why, it’s almost as if we’re governed by people who don’t seriously think about these things.
Yutsano
@aimai: The real big pain (this is where not having an opposition party being an opposition party bites but I digress) is, as we saw on the health care vote, when the shit hits the fan, that can come back and bite you in the ass. You get too recalcitrant in supporting them then they have zero incentive to return said support when you need them for another vote. Since you can’t turn to the Republicans for, well, anything now, we’re stuck treating the Blue Dogs as the actual opposition in this country. Not that I’m trying to blame the Republicans for this. but when the minority in your chamber is a bunch of tools and all you have left is the broad parts of your coalition, you work with what you can.
D-Chance.
Maybe I’m unaware of the current market conditions, but $825 per month is more than many, if not most, mortgage payments. If this is the future of “mandatory” health insurance, we’re fucked. If you thought we had a housing crisis before, just let Democrats force you to decide between payments on your house or your health insurance.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, a family of four earning $54,000 in 2016, when the health legislation is fully in effect, would be eligible for a subsidy of $10,100 to help defray the cost of insurance under the health legislation being debated by the Senate. By then, one of the most popular federal plans, a nationwide Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy, is projected to cost more than $20,000.
That could leave the family earning $54,000, slightly more than the current median household income, with monthly premium costs of more than $825.
The Democrats’ proposal would also allow some people ages 55 to 64 to “buy in” to Medicare, starting in 2011. That could cost about $7,600 a year per person or $15,200 for a couple, according to a budget office analysis of an earlier version of the concept. No subsidies would be available until 2014.
Note to self… don’t get sick between 2011 and 2014…
Xanthippas
Come on guys…we need to be fair about this. Where do you think these guys get their campaign money from? It ain’t Obama.
We have the best democracy money can buy.
Todd
Is there a list of who voted for and against the amendment (not just the overall bill)?
El Cid
On the bright side, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency — which was a major target against which the Chamber of Commerce had been lobbying — made it through.
I don’t think cramdown is going to survive as an amendment to another action. Maybe there needs to be a separate housing & mortgage reform bill. It’s not like we haven’t done the equivalent, more or less, of cramdown before, with the HOLC in the New Deal. Different scale, though, vastly.
Yutsano
@El Cid: This. We tend to think of the New Deal as a one-shot law passage, when in fact it was a large number of smaller laws that made incrementalist changes over years. FDR just called it a “New Deal” for the American people.
Mnemosyne
@Napoleon:
I read the correction and then the article and the correction makes no fucking sense the way the article is currently written. I can’t even figure out what it’s referring to, unless it’s the reference to going back to the administration’s original cramdown proposal.
I think the thing you saw in there on Sunday was removed because it was not accurate.
Zifnab
@aimai:
Blue Dogs hold red districts and they caucus with the party. That gives them leverage. The leadership of the Democratic Party is too afraid that they’ll lose Blue Dog support. And after a series of routes from ’94 to ’02, the foundation of the Democratic Party has suffered some serious cracking.
If you’re wondering why the party doesn’t have a strategy against – basically – itself, it’s because the Blue Dogs are a part of the hierarchy and they won’t let that happen. You’ve got your Progressive Caucus and your Black Caucus and your other various interest groups within the House. But they are always at odds with each other and they’ve all got their own agendas and plans for power.
I mean, are you asking for a GOP style purge?
Mnemosyne
Sort of on topic, but has anyone noticed in their town that Realtors seem to be turning into rental agents? I’m starting to see a lot of “For Rent” signs on condominiums that refer you to a real estate agent, not a management company.
I suspect this is another shell game to prop up home prices here in Southern California — it’s not in foreclosure, it’s a rental, so it hasn’t lost any value!
At least we’re not Michigan — a friend of mine paid $80,000 for her house there. Now it’s valued at $20,000 … but she still has to pay that $80,000 mortgage.
General Winfield Stuck
Since I am really dumb on this stuff, here is an Ezra link to some other bill that did get passed by the House that sounds like something good. I can’t figure why the House would vote down the cramdown bill when they previously approved it. Does not make sense, but that is why some good finance wonks here at BJ, to explain this to dweebs like moi.
arguingwithsignposts
I’m going to see my kids this weekend. What can I tell them?
I’m just tired of this bullsh*t.
/rant
arguingwithsignposts
I always find the broken ones.
bago
@D-Chance.: Damn, dude. What part of hicksville do YOU live in?
arbitrista
This is very simple. Say that without provision x,y, or z in the financial reform bill, you will veto it because it’s not real reform. Then you argue that the only reason to vote against x,y,z is because the congressmember is the in pocket of the banks. This is called an outside-in political strategy – using public pressure to move members of Congress. This is the most important political tool Presidents have, and Obama has essentially refused to use it. All we get are tepid statements about what he would like to have happen, and then either inaction or complicity when the provision is stripped (see: drug importation).
arbitrista
But just to clarify, I will say that a) obviously there are a lot of corrupt members of congress, and b) we desperately need campaign finance reform. I just wish Obama and other Democrats had realized early enough that we need institutional change in order to make policy changes possible. I get the sense that a lot of leading Democrats thought that all that was required was to get rid of Bush & Co. and everything would be fine. But these aren’t problems 8 years in the making, but 30.
Jennifer
@Xanthippas:
Law of Unintended Consequences.
And now, I can go drink margaritas and blame it on the Blue Dogs. They’re good for something, I guess.
Have a good weekend, all.
lamh31
ATTACKING THE WHITE HOUSE HOLIDAY CARDS….
Okay, this is ri-goddamn-diculous!!! I wish the Obamas woulda really stuck it to them, and sent out cards with “Happy Kwanzaa” on them…idiots!!
K. Grant
And by God, the very fact that Obama hasn’t addressed and solved each and every one of these problems means that he has sold us out, pissed in our cornflakes, and stolen little Timmy’s sled.
retr2327
I can’t be the first one to suggest that “Stupid is as Stupak does.” But I still like it.
Napoleon
@Mnemosyne:
I think what they are saying is that originally that the administration wanted to take cram down out and now they are saying they didn’t object to it. They do a poor job in trying to get the point across.
Comrade Dread
Great to see Democrats in Congress are looking out for the little guy at Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, B of A, et al.
If you want to disillusion a lot of people, this is a great way to do it, guys.
Ruckus
@D-Chance.:
I’d say your $825 mortgage payment allowance is low for most places. BofA has posted in my local branch a 30 yr fixed for $250k is $1342/month. That’s for a house that’s going to run $310-320 with 20% down. That’s a condo around here.
Anyway if I can’t afford insurance now how is this better?
OK so I’m just going to wait till I’m 65, get medicare, and if I’m still alive, walking and all that, use the hell out of it. Any other options that I see now are just unaffordable. And for sure I’m not alone here.
What do we do when we are mad as hell and can’t take it anymore?
Liberty60
This illustrates the problem- that the banking and corporate purchase of influence is not limited to the GOP- they own and operate much of the Democratic Party as well.
The days when you could assume all Dems were liberal defensers of the little guy are long gone.
Or more important- thinking we could elect Obama and our battles were done, is wishful thinking.
The bankers are out there fighting every single day; we the people need to do the same.
gwangung
I’m disappointed, but not surprised. Mainly because any rational person, like bankers, would hire effective people to lobby full time in their favor. Countering that would mean hiring at least as many effective people, or putting in time to equal or overwhelm the professional lobbyists.
Nick
@arbitrista: cause publically applying pressure to them would work how exactly when everyone is too busy following Tiger Woods around.
Nick
@Frank Chow: cause idiots vote.
CalD
@mk3872:
Oddly enough, Denny Kucinich voted against this amendment. Wonder why…
Comrade Luke
@Zifnab:
What support are they afraid of losing?
lamh31
Okay,
What I’m about to do is seriously off topic, but if these don’t deserve a post, then I don’t know what does!!!
SERIOUSLY YA’LL GO CHECK OUT THESE PHOTOS OF MC STEELE!!!!
‘Best Boss Ever? Michael Steele & The RNC Interns
The RNC put a password protection ofn the photos online, but TPM through the magic of the internet has got em. This man is a joke.
Nick
@Liberty60:
When were they ever here?
Nick
@arbitrista: and they’ll still vote for it anyway because when the public is out of lunch, being in the pocket of big banks aren’t really an issue.
dmsilev
@lamh31: Meh. On the spectrum of “weird and/or stupid things Michael Steele has done”, this one is pretty minor, verging on unnoticeable.
-dms
CalD
I’d still like to know why Dennis Kucinich voted against this.
Cerberus
I keep repeating to myself like a mantra:
They’re slightly better than Republicans, they’re slightly better than Republicans, they’re slightly better than Republicans.
But damn if they don’t keep dancing on that thin edge and test my resolve.
Regardless of anything though, I want Bart Stupak to get inoperable boner cancer. Not really for any political reason, but mainly because he has earned it as his proud reward for constantly leading the parade of the conservadem fuckwit brigade.
Liberty60
Off topic, but very much teh funny-
At Crooked Timber:
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/12/10/local-kid-makes-good/
Money quote:
“Apparently that’s the inscription at the base of the new “young Barack Obama” statue recently unveiled in Jakarta—on a site that was once an athletic field used by Obama’s elementary school. In what appears to be a deliberate provocation to the American right, the young Obama holds in his left hand a crumpled copy of his Kenyan birth certificate, which according to the laws of Othercountriestan entitles him to Indonesian citizenship.”
J. Michael Neal
@serge:
It isn’t that I disagree with you. Serious campaign finance reform is essential to the health of the country. Just two problems:
1) How do you plan to pass it?
2) As essential as it is, there are also serious constitutional problems with any reform that would do the job. In modern society, buying a TV ad is political speech. Preventing someone from buying it is as blatant a first amendment violation as I can imagine. Just because that sort of change is essential doesn’t mean that it’s possible. Sometimes, the liberal (in its classical sense) foundations of our country are problematic.
J. Michael Neal
@General Winfield Stuck:
If you know that it’s going to die in the Senate, why piss off the vested interests? I don’t have a problem with this, as much as I’d like to see cramdown legislation passed. Far better to apply pressure to the ranks when it has some chance of being meaningful.
J. Michael Neal
@Xanthippas:
As I’ve said before, focusing our efforts on keeping everyone in their home isn’t the right choice. It’s going to stick a lot of people who can’t afford it with permanent financial hemorrhaging, and prevent some very needed adjustments. Aside from that, the vast majority of those who rework their mortgage end up back in default within 18 months.
It’d be better to focus on helping them make the adjustments after foreclosure. Assistance finding adequate rental housing and financial support after that would be a better use of resources.
But, yeah, the lack of interest in actual policy among members of Congress is pretty depressing.
JMY
Wait, Kucinich voted against this? hahahaha…
Dave
Oh come on. If Obama had just made a forceful speech about this ALL of congress would have just magically fallen right in line! Or haven’t you been reading AmericaBlog? If you had you’d have known that President Obama can do whatever he wants, regardless of what congress wants to pass.
Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to listen to the podcast of John Aravosis of AmericaBlog on PajamasTV discussing why Barack Obama is a gay hating, weak willed, imposter of a Democratic President!
Seriously, call me an “ObamaBot” all you want, but I think any liberal who sees a GOP congress in tandem with a President Romney or Palin as preferrable to Obama is bat-shite crazy. But they’re out there. And this is the kind of moronic thinking that lead to voting for Nader in 2000 and the disaster that followed….
ruemara
@D-Chance.:
$825 is more than many mortgage payments? Are you serious? I’d kill for my mortgage to be $825! The only people who have mortgages that low are oldsters and people who rent split level condo cardboard boxes over the best grate on 5th ave. And my monthly insurance is nearly $800 and that’s just as a part timer benefit.
arbitrista
Dave:
I never said I would rather support a Republican or have a Republican congress, or vote for a 3rd party. But I do think it’s perfectly appropriate to criticize the purported leaders of their party when they make bad policy or bad decisions. I think it’s unfortunate that a reasonable disagreement among those on the center-left (that Obama is not doing everything he should to push progressive reform vs. Obama is doing all he can under difficult conditions) gets so vicious. I am not a Kucinich supporter or a Naderite, but I do think that Obama has failed to use all the tools of the presidency effectively. I do think that he made major errors early in his presidency (in particular not putting political reform at the center of his agenda) that has badly weakened his presidency. And I do think that Obama hasn’t delivered very much given to progressives, and has done a lot to alienate or disappoint. That’s not radical leftism from a loony – it’s the considered judgment of a political scientist who’s been participating in politics for a very long time. Maybe I’m wrong, but I hope I’m not. Because if this really is the best we can do with supermajorities and a discredited opposition, then this country is in very, very deep trouble.