The example of Massachusetts

How I would love, LOVE, for someone to find someone, ANYONE, who entered foreclosure who actually fit the media's criteria of an "innocent victim".

That the city of Boston and Commonwealth of Massachusetts have initiated programs that NO ONE is taking advantage of, should tell you lots.

The Globe perpetuates this myth - just today, your newspaper editorializes that more needs to be done:

"Much of the problem stems from the subprime mortgage market that lured unstable or unsuspecting buyers with low introductory rates. When payments rose, owners defaulted, often leaving tenants in the lurch. Some of these owners never should have received financing in the first place. But many could still be in their homes, if more lenders would agree to modify their loans."

No one, NO ONE, has yet to prove that the majority of foreclosures are a result of those who couldn't afford resetting rates. In fact, there is reason to believe that many borrowers were past-due and headed for default, ON DAY ONE.

Not "unstable" or "unsuspecting" - "unqualified" and "unworthy" are better adjectives.

Does it make a difference to state the facts, in the scheme of things?

I don't know. Well, yes, actually, this case, because the Globe, as well as just about every other newspaper, is suggesting that "more needs to be done" because of "innocent victims"; if those who were losing their homes were complicit in these "crimes", then no one would want to help them, regardless of the effects on two neighborhoods within one city out of 351.

George Will (I never thought I'd be quoting him!), had this to say in a column in the Washington Post:

"Casting this minority of a minority as victims of "predatory" lending fits the liberal narrative that most Americans are victims of this or that sinister elite or impersonal force and are not competent to cope with life's complexities without government supervision ...

... The 96 percent of mortgage borrowers who are fulfilling their commitments, often by scrimping, may be grumpy bystanders if many of the other 4 percent -- those who found the phrase "variable rate" impenetrably mysterious -- are eligible for ameliorations of their obligations."

(You can just see him humped over a computer monitor, seething and sneering as he wrote those words, can't you?)

So far, we've seen government proposals that would hand out $100 million (city of Boston), $250 million (Commonwealth of Massachusetts), and $300 billion (Congressman Barney Frank) to people. I'm sorry, I mean to "unsuspecting" borrowers.

It's hard to find compassion in people, especially in Massachusetts, given our "Puritan" ways and means.

Or, maybe it's just me.

Govt programs to forestall foreclosure remind me off that old story about the King Canute of England and his ordering the tide to stop.

People paid too much during the bubble for housing. It was money they never had, and could only afford if the market continued to go up in bubble fashion forever. That money has vanished, and no programs wil bring it back, any more than Massachusetts could bring back Pets.com.

And the state doesn't have the money to pay off everyone's mortgage.

Sometimes bad things happen to people who make foolish choices. It's impossible to regulate that fact out existence, as much as the typical Massachusetts resident would like to.

The only real bailouts are going to banks.

For borrowers, all government programs so far don't help those who can't be helped. You can't be a walkaway, you must be in real distress, and yet you can't be so far gone that you can't qualify as a good risk for one of the special programs. All this waste of time and money does is delay the inevitable and hurt the economy.

The banks, however, are getting the real pork, trading worthless mortgage-backed securities for billions of taxpayer dollars.

You can tell a lot from each news article by the language they use. In some ways this has become like other polarized issues, language is polarized. In one debate, for example, you have Estate Tax, Inheritence Tax vs Death Tax language. In this debate if you saved and were cautious, thinking there was a building bubble as you watched home prices climb up 150-200%, this could be described as a welcome correction. The people who took part in the bubble call this a Crisis or a catastophe or disaster. They also describe prices as a slump. "Slump "would indicate a temporary decline that will soon return to normal (putting on the william safire hat). Since the fundamental conditions have changed, would not Slump be imprecise language? Is it not more correct to call this a correction? Abnormal conditions (lending, appraisals, speculation) are repaired, that input to the upward drive in house prices is taken away, therefore housing prices correct to normal sustainable levels based on average income and economic conditions/trends. The falling prices are good for the state as a whole in terms of retaining talent and industry and allowing working parents to have money for kids, college, etc.