The Post reports on an effort to revitalize the Hope for Homeowners program. It notes that second mortgage holders have often objected to loan modifications because these modifications generally wiped them out. By contrast, it suggests that there is a need to "balance" the interests of holders of first and second mortgages.
It would have been worth noting that holders of second mortgages are supposed to be wiped out. Under our sacred contract law, they are not supposed to get a penny unless the holder of the first mortgage is paid in full. Since first mortgage holders are losing much of the value of their mortgages, second mortgage holders should receive zero. That would be balance.
However, second mortgage holders, which are primarily banks (a.k.a. the folks that the taxpayers bailed out) are using their legal power to block modifications to extort money from the government, even though their mortgages would be worthless in the event of a foreclosure. This point should have been made clear in this article.
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
