Pawlenty (GOP) vetoes temporary freeze on foreclosures

Source: Pioneer Press

Gov. Tim Pawlenty on Thursday vetoed a bill that would have put foreclosures on hold for thousands of Minnesotans struggling with subprime and exotic home loans.

The temporary foreclosure freeze was a key but particularly controversial part of a package of bills sent to the governor recently that are aimed at easing fallout from the foreclosure crisis, 11 of which have been signed into law.

They include laws to protect renters in foreclosure situations, deal with abandoned properties, increase limits on financial assistance to homeowners and give homeowners in trouble more information about foreclosure prevention counseling.

. . .

The American Securitization Forum, a group of lenders and Wall Street investment companies, swiftly issued a statement today applauding the veto. Such a law would have eroded "lender and investor confidence in the stability of contracts in Minnesota," it said, ultimately restricting credit.

Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFLSt. Paul, who co-sponsored the bill, accused Pawlenty of "parroting" the rhetoric of large finance companies far from the front yards of families struggling with the housing mess.

Read more: http://www.twincities.com/politics/ci_9421317

"boyish good looks" and "affable manner" but a rePiglican is a rePiglican and Pawlenty's a shit.

... with 46.7 percent of the vote and was the only Republican to hold onto major state office in Minnesota in '06. Had Mike Hatch and his running mate not tripped in the final week, Pawlenty probably would've lost too.

In winning, though, Pawlenty made enemies of his strongest supporters in the state:

"Margaret Martin, wife of Taxpayers League President David Strom (said) ... 'Pawlenty has done more to keep the base demoralized and disorganized than any governor, Republican or Democrat, in the last 10 years. At least there was no pretense with Arne. Why does do this? Because it benefits him politically. It's Machievellian. It works. He almost lost this time but since he didn't, it won't matter. Pawlenty sucked all the money and other resources of the election for Republicans.'" (source: http://articles.citypages.com/2006-11-15/news/fade-to-blue/).

The people in the Taxpayers League are the type of people you don't want to anger - they are loud and organized. Very loud.

And the Democratic candidates running for Minnesota House and Senate did far better than expected. Because *so* many Republicans got their asses handed to them in U.S. congressional state gubernatorial races in '06, Pawlenty's shaky victory here was a silver lining for the party. But I'm not sure he'd survive another run in '10 in Minnesota's climate, so he's setting the table now to not run a losing campaign then. If not the V.P. spot on McCain's ticket, then perhaps going private (I doubt he would try to run against Amy Klobachar for the U.S. Senate seat in '10, too much risk in losing).

Just my thoughts, though.

See "Night of the Short Knives" article:
http://articles.citypages.com/2006-11-15/news/night-of-the-short-knives/

See "Fade to Blue" article:
http://articles.citypages.com/2006-11-15/news/fade-to-blue/

nt

The banks made the stupid loans in the first place. They allowed unqualified people to make payments they couldn't afford, so they should be punished by owning an over-valued home.

Don't you see that the bail-out you want is not going to help home-owners, its going to help all the big rich bankers!

Force the banks to lend at lower rates that people can afford and they won't be foreclosed on for the most part.

If you force banks to make loans at lower rate, they will stop making loans. Well, they won't stop making loans, but they will raise the criteria SOOOOO high, that the average man won't be able to get a loan.

The interest one pays is based on what the bank thinks the risk of getting repaid is. If you force them to give lower interest rates, they will ONLY make loans to over-qualified people (or people who can afford a $500k home but want to buy a home that is only $250k).

--JAY

and have upped the criteria.

to people who can't afford the $400k McMasion on their $50k salary!

This is from personal recent experience from a person with an outstanding credit rating and a ton of equity with a very high paying job. The bank itself states this is so. the financial news confirms this also. They have pulled back in an extreme way. There are a gazillion articles that this is happening and we have seen it first hand.

Banks are now OVER-EXPOSED! They are only going to make loans to people they KNOW are not going to default...they need to minimize their risk right now!

they are not making loans to people even when they know they won't default.

Along with the lower fed rate. In the mean time home values are plummeting and people are LOSING their homes. So very few people getting new loans, people who are paying are dumping money into a blackhole, the banks are getting our tax dollars at a shockingly low interest rate and lending it back to a select few of us at a not so low iterest rate.

The market has to be stabilized! Then the banks can feel more comfortable leding money. They lose a ton of money when they foreclose you know.

The government can screw up the market, the government can slow the market's change (at great expense and risk), but the market will always do what it has to do!

doesn't bail out the banks. It forces them to live with and work out their mistakes instead of passing them on to society (e.g. the little guy). And banks will continue to make loans because that is their business. If they *don't* make loans, they *don't* make any money at all.

Freezing foreclosures

1. helps people who, in many cases, were *defrauded* by these banks, stay in their homes and workout their loans to payments they can afford

1. also protects the value of *all* of our homes, instead of allowing those of us who have major investments in our homes to lose our life savings. A crashed housing market hurts *everybody* who owns a home, not just those who were either defrauded or made honest mistakes or were foolish.

1. also helps to stabilize society. Do you *really* want to see a bunch of people (and their pets) living in their cars or the street? Or do you figure that the ones that will turn to crime in desperation can then be put into more jails. And the rest can rent the homes they once owned from the fat cats just waiting to snap them up at rock bottom prices?

Great! More business for the jailers, more lives ruined, more fat cats to feel superior, and more regular people fucked over.

Even if one uses the reasoning that lenders should serve only their self-interests, then it still doesn't make a lot of sense to have widespread foreclosures. The bank doesn't need your house, they need your interest payments. The recoup of a foreclosed house sherrif's sale sometimes doesn't cover the money owed on the mortgage. Especially not these days, when the housing market is sagging.

If they were stupid enough to get an ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE, and the interest went up 2% and now they are facing foreclosure, then they deserve what they get for not doing the math!!

This type scenario is directly attributed to our failing school systems and the "entitlement" mentality.

I have been forced to live in a rental apt.. Not becouse I wanted to, but becouse I made the assessment that I could not afford a 1/4 million dollar home on 50k a year. My wife and kids suffered becouse of it, but I made the hard decison. Now, my tax dollars are going to bail out homeowners who made the bad decison that I avoided? That's bullshit...

with corporate welfare, i.e. bailing out Bear stearns to to the tune of billions? http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/6242/Pathetic-Bear-Stearns-Bailout:-Who-to-Blame?tickers=bsc,jpm

Maybe you should read post #10. It's not just "bad decisions" that cause foreclosures. 60% of all bankruptcies are caused by medical debt. Another 25% are caused by unemployment (which has surged under BushCo). Predatory lenders who CONNED buyers into believing that their exotic loans were rock solid need to be held accountable and need to be regulated.

I knew I would catch hell for my opinion, but I will stick to it. According to you I should be able to make irresponsible financial decisions and then expect the government to bail me out. From what I understand that's not the way the market is supposed to work. As for your statistics, they may be correct in the normal market, but I think in this market the lion's share of foreclosures are from irresponsible lenders and borrowers.
If someone is losing their home because of medical issues we should bail them out.
I did not take out a home loan because I was unsure of my future job status and because of my health. Why should I have my tax dollars go to bail out people who did not make the same judgment? Where the fuck is my house? Oh yeah, I wasn't irresponsable...so I don't get one.

** I am someone in the industry and I can tell you that there was severe Predatory lending and also fraud by originators, apraisers, closers.

Acorn advocacy group was trying to bring attention to this as were others.

If you are "in the industry" and knew Predatory lending was going on, then you are part of the problem!

The banks and real estate people got greedy! they over inflated housing prices and poorly educated people were signing into loans they couldn't afford. Bailing out the home-owner is nothing more than making sure the fat cat bankers don't loose money. Besides, the bank is the "home-owner" until the mortgage is payed! ERGO< the only one really being protected is the BANK!

--JAY

Thank you for sticking with your opinion. If it matters at all, I feel nearly the same as you.

I've been renting here on the California central coast for nearly 15 years. Seeing as the average house around here is still upwards of 500k, I won't own one anytime soon.

The housing crisis hasn't stopped my landlord from raising rent twice in two years... and now I will most likely pay some eventual bailout of the mortgage companies, too.

For myself-- I'm fine with my tax dollars going to help someone in trouble-- regardless of whose fault it is. Seems to me that that's one of the very reasons we pay taxes-- to help people out when they're in trouble.

But that's just me. I can see why a lot of people would want their tax dollars to help out only those in need due to reason beyond their control. But to me, need is need and help is help.

who are having issues with loans on primary residences due to fraud, misrepresentation, and health problems. I do not agree with bailing out mortgage speculators and fat cats on their 2nd houses.

Tip I heard for people in court trying to save their houses - ask for the note to be produced. In most cases the loans have been bundled and resold, then resold again and the people taking you to court don't have the note so the case gets thrown out.

The problem is, there had better be a crap-load of oversight of this bailout.

With all the fraud and shady profits made during the housing bubble's 'rise', I don't completely trust that any bailout funds will funnel down to the little guy or gal. More like to Citigroup's coffers.

You'd think that lenders would find it worth their effort to work with borrowers, and not just foreclose when a few payments fall behind.

By foreclosing, the bank gets the booby prize: an unwanted house that they have to get rid of in an already glutted market, and the bank is likely to still declare a loss, if they can't sell the house for enough to cover the loan balance. Knowledgeable people have said to me "banks don't want your house. They want your interest money." So why then, aren't lenders willing to work with the borrowers just a little more? If banks could be a little more forgiving in these tough times, maybe with a deferral, it could be a win-win situation. The lenders would keep getting their payments and homeowners could keep the houses.

The first being, the banks don't have your loan on their books. The mortgage has been sliced and diced and turned into CDOs and sold off to hedge funds.

The second being, the mortgage processor (the intermediary who collects your payment and charges you late fees) collect higher profits if the loan payments are late. They have no incentive to assist you in getting your loan payments down to a manageable level. If the loan goes to foreclosure, they collect fees on that foreclosure.

There are many other impediments in the way of helping homeowners, these are just two of them.

Those people who told you "banks don't want your house. They want your interest money." are talking about a world that doesn't exist any more. In the last six years, the mortgage game has been completely reinvented.

I have so much to learn.

*** Gov Pawlenty's phone # is 651-296-3391 ***



State Republicans gather at convention in Rochester this weekend to endorse Coleman for another term
Thursday, 29 May 2008
by T.W. Budig
ECM Capitol reporter

State Republicans will gather at the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester this weekend (May 29-31) to presumptively endorse U.S. Senator Norm Coleman and otherwise whip-up the party faithful.

“Our goal is to fire-up our base at the convention,” said Republican State Party Chairman Ron Carey.

One ingredient to the fortifying mix will appear on Saturday at the close of the convention.

Karl Rove, former Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush, is scheduled to give the keynote address to the convention.

“Karl Rove is one of those individuals who can fire people up,” said Carey of the former Bush insider who has made the transition to media personality. “Hopefully he send everyone off fired up and ready to march,” he said.

Sen. Coleman is expected to be endorsed at 3 p.m. on Friday.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is expected to address the convention Saturday morning.

If that were to happen, Minnesota's gain would be America's loss.