Homeowner bailout plan stirs ire

The question has struck a raw nerve across the country, with critics saying the Obama administration’s latest housing rescue rewards people who bought homes they couldn’t afford. Others counter that the taxpayer-financed plan will slow the downward spiral of home prices and avert a deeper economic disaster.

The debate captures the strong emotions stirred up over who benefits as the government tries to fix the financial crisis. It’s likely to remain on the front burner for months as lawmakers consider other contentious issues, such as whether bankruptcy judges should be given the power to change borrowers’ home loans.

“I feel like I’m doing the right thing paying my mortgage, and now apparently I have to pay my neighbor’s mortgage, too. People are really angry,” said Kim Guymon, a stay-at-home mom who bought a three-bedroom home with her husband in suburban Seattle in 2001 and has watched it drop $150,000 in value since last summer.

Rescuing people whose homes are worth less than they owe on their mortgages doesn’t sit well with Robert Bechler, either. Still, the 37-year-old flooring contractor said he sees little choice.

“If they don’t bail those people out, it’s just going to get worse. It’s a necessary evil, I suppose,” said Bechler, who with his fiancee just bought a house in Cape Coral, Fla., for $92,000 after waiting years for prices to fall.

The rescue plan unveiled Wednesday by President Barack Obama offers $75 billion in incentives for banks and investors to reduce struggling home borrowers’ interest rates and make other changes to loan terms. The money will come from the second half of the $700 billion federal financial bailout. The goal is to keep 4 million homeowners out of foreclosure and halt free-falling home prices.

To qualify, lenders and mortgage investors would have to agree on a lower interest rate that would be designed to reduce the borrower’s mortgage payments to 38 percent of their pretax income. The government would then provide financing to bring that ratio down to 31 percent.

Another piece is designed to help borrowers who are still making their payments on time, but want to refinance into lower mortgage rates.

Republican lawmakers and conservative pundits immediately denounced the plan as an affront to free market principles and said it promotes irresponsible borrowing.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, summed up the plan as “Nice guys finish last.” Conservative columnist David Brooks echoed those sentiments in a New York Times column titled “Money for Idiots.”

Rick Santelli, a CNBC reporter who exploded in a tirade this week from the Chicago Board of Trade, has accused the president of crafting a housing bailout that is unfair to the millions of responsible mortgage holders. “Government is promoting bad behavior,” Santelli said on his network. “Do we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages?”

He continued: “This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage?” Later, in a video that has become a YouTube sensation, Santelli called for Obama to put his plan to an Internet referendum and called for a new Tea Party to protest the housing plan.

“President Obama! Are you listening?” Santelli demanded.

Video of the exchange has been viewed over 1.2 million times on CNBC.com, more than any other clip in the Web site’s history.

Viewers apparently include people at the White House. Press secretary Robert Gibbs unleashed a barrage of criticism at Santelli on Friday, attacking him repeatedly by name at a press briefing. He accused Santelli of not reading the president’s housing plan and mocked the former derivatives trader as an ineffective spokesman for the little guy.

“I’m not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives or in what house he lives,” Gibbs told reporters in a derisive tone. “Mr. Santelli has argued — I think quite wrongly — that this plan won’t help everyone. This plan will help, by the money that’s invested in Freddie and Fannie, will drive down mortgage rates for millions of Americans.”

Later, Gibbs added: “Now, every day when I come out here, I spend a little time reading, studying on the issues, asking people who are smarter than I am questions about those issues. I would encourage him to read the president’s plan and understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom he knows. I’d be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I’d be happy to buy him a cup of coffee, decaf.”

Gibbs’ response also indicates that the White House is particularly sensitive to criticism that it is unconcerned with people who acted responsibly as the economy crashed. In his response, Gibbs insisted that the plan will not reward irresponsible behavior. “It won’t help somebody trying to flip a house. It won’t bail out an investor looking to make a quick buck,” Gibbs said. “It won’t help speculators that were betting on a risky market. And it is not going to help a lender who knowingly made a bad loan.”

He ended by holding up the president’s housing plan, an indication that he his tirade against Santelli was planned in advance. “This is a copy of the president’s home affordability plan,” he said. “It’s available on the White House Web site, and I would encourage him, download it, hit print, and begin to read it.”

Santelli, appearing on CNBC Friday soon after Gibbs’ comments, appeared to be enjoying the attention.

“This is exactly what we want. They are making things clear,” said Santelli, who was hardly a household name 48 hours ago. He added: “I think it’s wonderful that he invited me to the White House. I’m not really big on decaf though. I think I prefer tea.”

Other supporters of Obama’s housing plan are also pushing back against the criticism.

“This is the financial equivalent of what Hurricane Katrina did to New Orleans. Did they know they were living below sea level? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn’t help them? That’s ridiculous,” said Kathleen Day of the nonprofit Center For Responsible Lending.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Obama’s housing secretary, Shaun Donovan, said it’s in everyone’s interest to stop the wave of foreclosures, which drag down the prices of all homes in an affected area.

“What we’re doing is we’re benefiting everybody,” he said.

Donovan said administration officials considered the potential backlash from angry borrowers when they designed the plan. That’s why it doesn’t just help borrowers in danger of losing their homes, he said. It also aims to make it easier for households who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth to refinance. There are nearly 14 million households in that situation, according to Moody’s Economy.com.

In the coming months Congress is poised to try to hash out a set of housing issues, including whether the bankruptcy change is needed and a proposal to protect companies that collect mortgage payments from investor lawsuits.

The tussle over the housing bailout comes as the government is doling out hundreds of billions in bailouts and stimulus for banks, Detroit automakers and recession-weary consumers.

So why has the housing bailout wound up so many people?

Part of it has to do with the critical role housing plays in the national identity, said Barry Ritholtz, a financial analyst and author of “Bailout Nation, How Corrupt money Shook Wall Street.”

“The average family doesn’t have a huge stock portfolio. But you have 100 million families that own homes,” Ritholtz said.

Rosa Valdez, a resident of Coachella, Calif., hopes it’s not too late for her family to be helped. The native of Mexico saved enough to buy a new $380,000 home in 2006 in the Lennar development of La Morada, where foreclosures are rampant. She fears her home could be next without federal help.

“It’s our last resource,” said Valdez, who was turned down when she tried to renegotiate her loan.

O.B. Brock of Charleston, W. Va., opposes bailing out people who got in over their heads and the banks that helped them.

“It’s just rewarding crooks,” said the 38-year-old single mother, who said she turned down a bank’s $100,000 mortgage offer five years ago because she knew she couldn’t afford it.

Others are more sympathetic.

Debra Rodriguez, of Tucson, said she believes many borrowers were victimized by unscrupulous lenders.

“I could sit back and say ‘Hey, I’m not getting anything and that’s not fair.’ But I’ve been fortunate enough that I don’t need a bailout,” Rodriguez said.

For Chris Grande of suburban Dayton, Ohio, helping troubled borrowers only makes sense after the billions spent on other bailouts.

“Does it reward bad behavior? Absolutely, it does. But no more than the banks who offered these loans rewarding themselves for their own bad behavior,” said Grande, 26.

The Washington Post contributed to this report.