Advertisement

May 19, 2013

Big Banks Can Fund Mortgage Aid Programs If Government Won’t, Says Democrat Barney Frank

As budget-conscious House Republicans try to kill a $1 billion program to help unemployed Americans avoid foreclosure, Democrat Barney Frank today suggested another funding source: Require the big banks to pick up the tab.

A recent Financial Reform Watch story looked at Republican criticism that the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and other anti-foreclosure programs have so far helped relatively few homeowners. Frank’s successor as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Republican Spencer Bachus, is pushing to eliminate the programs while Democrats have urged ways to improve them.

Frank said he will offer legislation that would require big banks to fund a $1 billion program that helps unemployed Americans pay their mortgages for up to 12 months by providing interest-free loans. The program, run by the Housing and Urban Development Department, was designed to help about 30,000 unemployed homeowners.

“I don’t mean to demonize, but I think Goldman Sachs, and Wells Fargo, and the Bank of America, and Citicorp, and Morgan Stanley, and the large hedge funds, I think they can pay for this,” Frank said on the House floor , The Hill reported today (3/11/11).

The big banks “can afford this billion dollars,” said Frank, who co-authored the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. “Their bonuses alone would pay for these programs.”

The House voted to end the HUD program. “The money from this program doesn’t go to the homeowner, it goes to the lender, it goes to the banks.  And who pays for it? The taxpayers and ultimately our children and grandchildren because the federal government borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends,” said Bachus.

On Thursday, the House also voted to pull the plug on the $8 billion Federal Housing Administration program that provides FHA-insured loans to help underwater homeowners refinance if the lender first writes off at least 10 percent of the principal.

Next week, the House is expected to vote to terminate HAMP, a $50 billion program created by the Obama administration.  HAMP has been criticized by a government watchdog for hurting some homeowners who seek mortgage modifications, and for approving relatively few permanent modifications.

However, the House votes are seen as mostly symbolic because the Democratic-led Senate is not expected to take up similar measures.

Reprinted by Permission © 2013, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Deputy Editor

Julie Vorman joined the Center in 2010 after more than 20 years as a correspondent, bureau chief, and editor at Reuters. As the Washington company news editor, she guided Reuters’ coverage of federal multi-billion-dollar bailouts to U.S. banks and automakers after the 2008 financial meltdown, the healthcare industry’s influence as Congress attempted to reform healthcare, and changes within the Securities and Exchange Commission after the Madoff investment fraud scheme. Vorman led the Reuters team that won the “Best in Business Breaking News” award from the Society...

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.