Star ParkerPosted on 11/12/2007 3:45:46 AM PST by radar101
Star Parker
The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 has passed out of Chairman Barney Frank's House Financial Services Committee. It's now headed to the full House for a vote. In the name of protecting the poor from market predators it will in actuality protect the poor from wealth.
This is yet a new chapter in the grand liberal tradition that advances the illusion that government micromanagement of private lives and markets will make us better off. We already have laws against fraud and theft. But for liberals, government isn't there to enforce the law. It's there to run our lives.
The legislation assumes that when private individuals make mistakes they can't figure out what they did wrong and make adjustments and that even if they could they wouldn't.
We're going to wind up with new and onerous regulations in the business of making loans to consumers for purchasing homes, and as a result, fewer loans will be made and we'll all be worse off. Those who will be penalized the most will be the low-income families who the new regulations will supposedly protect.
Should fraud be permitted in our society? No. Should government interfere with private individuals' latitude to determine on their own what risks they wish to take and the willingness of others to finance those risks? Absolutely not.
Frank's bill crosses far over the line into regulating private lives and behavior where he and government have no business.
Why will this hurt the very low-income families it purports to protect?
We already have plenty of experience with the costs of so-called consumer protection laws in general and those designed to regulate mortgage lending in particular.
In a recently published article in the Cato Supreme Court Review, Professor Marcus Cole of the Stanford University Law School discusses the fallout of lending laws in Illinois.
The Illinois Fairness in Lending Act passed in 2005 gives the state oversight authority on loans made in nine designated zip codes in the state. These zip codes are, of course, areas in which residents are mostly lower-income households.
The law places authority in a state bureaucracy to review all applications for mortgages in these designated zip codes. The bureaucrats who review these applications determine if the borrower needs credit counseling and requires the lender to pay for it if required.
The costs of the counseling are estimated to be as high as $700 and can delay the processing of the loan up to a month.
The borrower has no option to forego this counseling, whose objective is "to protect homebuyers from predatory lending in Cook County's at-risk communities and reduce the incidence of foreclosures."
What's the result?
Cole reports the following: "Instead of protecting hardworking would-be homeowners from predatory lending, the new law protected them from credit. Within just a few months more than 30 mortgage lenders refused to lend on homes purchased in the targeted zip codes. Those lenders determined to service these communities saw a rise in their costs, which translated into higher interest rates on their loans."
The purported cure was worse than the disease. Cole goes on to note that, "home sales in the designated zip codes dropped an average of 45 percent in just one month after the bill took effect. Home prices plummeted, draining relatively poor but hardworking people of what little equity they had in their homes."
The experience is similar in other states where governments have authorized bureaucrats to insert themselves between lenders and borrowers. Yes, the number of defaults have declined. They have declined because the number of loans have declined.
The Wall Street Journal reports that currently "80 percent of subprime loans are being repaid on time and another 10 percent are only 30 days behind."
These are overwhelmingly loans to low-income families. Probably, under Barney Frank's new regulatory regime, many of these loans would not have been made and the families in these homes would be renting and considerably less wealthy than they are today.
To quote former Texas Rep. Dick Armey, "freedom works." But it can only work if we let it.
Many have paid and are paying a great price for the errors and excesses of recent years. We now should allow private individuals and private markets the opportunity to self correct, which is what will happen.
If government steps in to pre-empt the market and Barney Frank is the one to decide who gets loans, the rich will stay rich, the poor will stay poor, and we'll have one more reason for already skeptical Americans to question the American dream.
“In the name of protecting the poor from market predators it will in actuality protect the poor from wealth.”
That’s true of virtually everything Washington does for the poor.
Not in this case, the majority of homes “owned” by the poor are modular housing. Modular housing is like a car, a depreciable asset whose value goes down very quickly after purchase. Poor people are better off renting.
correction “mobile” homes. The new modular houses are quite nice and upscale.
While, at the same time, they will go after banks for giving a disproportionate amount of loans to middle-upper income white people. That being said, I think the financial industry is out of control. Loans are sold by people workign on commission whose interests diverge from those of the banks. As long as this is the case, you are inviting disaster.
A few examples:
-- CT - taking people's homes by eminent domain for private business development (apparently a law now handed down by a judge... result... certainly makes one ponder before investing their hard earned money in real estate...)
-- no smoking regulations in privately owned office buildings, restaurants and bars (regulation put many Mom and Pop bars out of business in MA ... Somewhere in Civics 101 I heard this statement... Congress (government) shall make no laws impeding business...)
-- fat patrol on the loose as we speak... (schools should not be in the business of telling parents that their children are fat --> pediatrician's job)
-- ME schools handing out condoms to junior high school students without their parents knowledge or consent
BUT in complete contradiction to these intrusions, abortions are a right... even though there is scientific evidence that abortions are link to breast cancer. (Why should American citizens pay higher insurance for the risk of breast cancer... that have been linked back to the woman's abortion (CHOICE). (Unbelievably, it doesn't appear that Planned Parenthood or anyone else has explained this risk to women before they get their abortions. No surgeon general's warning on this practice...???)
Can't believe insurance companies aren't all over this risk.
Especially since they are all over a smokers' risks even after two 35 year, university studies showed that there was no risk involved in second hand smoke...
P.S. I'm not a smoker but it bothers me that American citizens are treated like lepers for this LEGAL habit. It further bothers me that the government continuously raises the taxes on cigarettes but doesn't seem to have any programs in place to help smokers quit or to ensure that smokers will have appropriate health care.
It's a taxation without representation problem.
Crossing the line obviously has never concerned Mr. Fwank.
This is a dangerous piece of legislation, which looks like it was written directly by large lenders. It would wipe out many mortgage companies, leaving consumers with fewer, limited options for financing.
As a result, loans will be harder to obtain, which will decrease demand, which leads to even more depreciation in real estate values.
A terrible bill, H.R. 3915, put forth as a protection to consumers, will hurt everyone.
for your consideration
Credit scores are not driven by income they are driven by credit history...
Credit scores are driven by history, including;
Manner of payment
Inquiries
Balance to high credit limit
Age of credit line
Type of credit line
It’s far from a perfect indicator of credit worthiness.
'Rats screwing 'Rats. 'Rat pols bailing out 'Rat donors. And if the "disenfranchised" don't wanna believe it I suggest that they see, for example, which party's been getting the big buck from Citibank.
It is a shame that most poorer people don’t read Star Parker’s columns. This will never be seen by the people who most need the information she is conveying.
Liberal policies hurt the poor. No news here.
It’s not a case of lenders pushing loans, but more a result of a Fed raising rates 17 straight times, directly effecting the adjustments on those with variable rate loans.
And, It’s not just the sub-prime loans which are being affected.
How do the “poor” buy anything if they have nothing such as to be called “poor”??
I wonder if this gal is a racist whereby she thinks the color of her skin entitles her to other people’s money?
Now why is a lender entitled to other peoples money with fraudulent loans? If a property gets appraised over what its actual value literally is, why then does the lender not become just as liable as the buyer of that loan?
Thanks for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.