Yesterday, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that he plans to bring the long-delayed cram-down bill — which would allow bankruptcy judges to “cram-down” mortgage payments for troubled homeowners — to the Senate floor for a vote next week. However, it will reportedly be introduced only as an amendment, a form in which “it appears likely to lose.” In fact, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has gone so far as to pronounce cram-downs “dead.”
So what is happening to this common sense proposal to address the housing crisis? First, it has been caught in a web of special interest lobbying. Various banks and credit unions have been involved in the negotiations, with different parties walking away from the table at one point or another. One lobbyist opposing the bill crowed about the mess, saying that “chaos is good.” Republicans have also been staunchly opposed to the bill, spreading various falsehoods about its effects.
While not completely necessary, it would have been helpful for the banks to support cram-downs. But Republican senators apparently pushed bailed out banks — that are operating thanks to taxpayer money — to not accept any compromises on the measure. According to CongressDaily:
GOP senators had put pressure on three big banks that were left negotiating — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — not to give in, according to sources. They were concerned the three lenders might agree to a compromise like Citigroup did earlier with [Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)], especially as they face pressure to strike a deal with Democrats because of other criticism leveled at them, including their use of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds, credit cards and mortgage lending practices. Citigroup is still feeling the wrath of GOP leadership.
JP Morgan, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo are all TARP recipients, and may have been enticed by Durbin’s offer to attach cram-downs to a bill raising the FDIC’s deposit-insurance limit. So which is worse here? Banks accepting taxpayer dollars while fighting against a measure meant to help taxpayers, or GOP Senators pushing them to continue doing so when a compromise is on the table?
Ending the tide of foreclosures is a key part of halting the economy’s slide. So as the New York Times editorial board wrote this morning, “Republican senators need to understand that a vote against this reform is a vote against economic recovery“:
As foreclosures add to the glut of unsold homes, house prices will continue to fall. That will lead to more foreclosures — declining equity is a risk factor for default — and more defaults and foreclosures will hamper the banks’ recovery and further constrain credit. And so on.


The big money boys are cramming each other down left and right. But the little guy having any power? Nah!
April 24th, 2009 at 7:41 pmeff!
April 24th, 2009 at 11:50 pmwhat a worthless bunch of millionaires.
what kind of crap is this?? CRam down???
I pay my mortgage, I save my money,
now you want my taxes to pay some other guys mortgage???
Give me a break. Who thought up this stupidity??
Let those who were stupid go broke and lose their houses.
If you want to go after someone, go after the idiots that caused the mess. Leave me alone. I saw it coming..
As far as credit cards – probably they need to be monitored further to stop abuses by the bankers – that would make some sense.
April 27th, 2009 at 2:04 amRobert Card misunderstands.
Cram down means that the homeowner gets his mortgage principal reduced to the fair market value of the collateral, typically more than the liquidation value, or what the bank would otherwise receive in a foreclosure. The bank takes the paper loss (the equity in the collateral is already gone, the bank is just forced to acknowledge it). Businesses and commercial property owners already have the right to do this to their secured debt.
None of Mr. Card’s money goes to bail out the homeowner.
If the bank needs a bailout, it gets less of his tax money than it would have needed after a foreclosure, because fair market value is more than liquidation value. Even better for Mr. Card’s tax money and personal wealth, preventing a foreclosure decreases the supply of houses on the market, thus increasing fair market value of the debtors’ houses, and Mr. Card’s too.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:05 pm