Obama Would Spend Bailout Funds On Housing Crisis

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JIM KUHNHENN | January 14, 2009 09:32 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
President-elect Barack Obama speaks to reporters during his meeting with Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, not pictured, in Washington, Monday, Jan. 12, 2009. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama would spend the remaining $350 billion of a financial bailout fund on expanded lending and reduced foreclosures and would not use the money to help other industries, lawmakers said Wednesday after discussions with Obama emissaries.

The Senate was set to vote Thursday on whether to release the money. Lawmakers insisted that Obama advisers put their assurances in writing before the vote.

Seeking to secure votes from wary members of both parties, Obama aides fanned out across the Capitol on Wednesday. Their lobbying effort culminated in a closed door meeting between Senate Republicans and top Obama economic adviser Larry Summers and incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

The private guarantees went further than what Obama's team has been willing to discuss publicly about his plans for the second half of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Obama has asked Congress for the money and has been trying to overcome misgivings from lawmakers over how the Bush administration spent the first half of the fund.

Democrats were growing increasingly optimistic that the Senate would agree to release the money to the new administration. And even reluctant Republicans praised Obama's outreach.

"These folks have much more credibility already than Secretary Paulson," Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said, referring to the Bush administration's treasury secretary, Henry Paulson.

Still, Republicans demanded that the incoming Obama administration put in writing details of the conditions and goals for the money.

Story continues below
advertisement

"There is a real concern that it's one thing to say it in the privacy of that room; it's another thing entirely to put something on the record," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.

While the criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the bailout has been bipartisan, Republicans were especially opposed to using the bailout funds to help out nonfinancial sector industries. Money from the fund has been used to assist insurance giant American International Group Inc. and automakers General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Summers and Rahm "did not represent they are in favor of industrial policy."

"We'd like to see something publicly stated with reference to that issue," he added.

In the House, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., said Summers assured him that Obama would commit a significant portion of the bailout money to foreclosure relief.

The House on Thursday was scheduled to vote on Frank legislation that would place broad restrictions on the bailout program. One major provision would require that the new administration spend between $40 billion and $100 billion on reducing the number of foreclosures.

"I believe they would have done this anyway," Frank said after speaking to Summers on Wednesday.

Obama's transition office would not comment on discussions held with members of Congress.

The House bill has little chance of passing the Senate.

Summers this week submitted a three-page letter to congressional leaders as part of Obama's request for the money that outlined the Obama economic team's goals. But several Republicans and Democrats said the letter was not specific enough and said they needed more information from the president-elect.

Congress built in a safeguard by requiring that after the first $350 billion of the bailout fund was spent, Congress could reject spending the second half. Obama has said he needs the additional money to help extend loans to small businesses, consumers, homeowners and local governments.

Lawmakers from both parties have complained that the Bush administration did not spend the money as it initially intended.

Paulson told legislators last year that the money would be used to buy toxic assets held by the banks in hopes that would help them make more loans. But the Treasury soon changed course and used the money to make direct infusions of capital into financial institutions with few strings attached. Lawmakers complained that the money has not appeared to loosen credit.

"It is critical we provide a real road map on how this funding will be spent," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

Republicans argued that Frank's bill was a futile effort.

"That we would just go ahead with the bill that everyone acknowledges is not going to become law as cover for us to then release the $350 billion is just plain wrong," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama would spend the remaining $350 billion of a financial bailout fund on expanded lending and reduced foreclosures and would not use the money to help othe...
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama would spend the remaining $350 billion of a financial bailout fund on expanded lending and reduced foreclosures and would not use the money to help othe...
 
Comments
679
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (10 pages total)
photo

Adding an indoor pool with my 350 Billion...What are you all going to do with your 350 Billion

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:54 AM on 01/16/2009

It's cold out and the repug Tr. Olls are out in force, looking for the warmth of fire that comes from their lies and hot air.

They want to continue the gr eed and self ishness of the last 8 years... too bad for you, you all need to get back under the bridge. It's not too bad down under there, warmer too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:44 PM on 01/15/2009
photo

They don't live under bridges....they are not welcome, Either. Forgotten ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 AM on 01/16/2009

The retention and creation of jobs should be number one prioty. If you help a few people out with their mortgages for the short-term what good will that do if there are no jobs to sustain those mortgages on into the future. People can survive without owning a house especially one they couldn't afford to begin with few people can survive very well without a job. Once again the bankers will get their blood money for making bad loans.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:41 PM on 01/15/2009

This housing crisis has been greatly caused by a Republican Party housing policy that left perfectly good urban property deteriorate while supplying ultra cheap (Greenspan) credit to create suburbs to the suburbs to the suburbs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:24 PM on 01/15/2009

If the govt. really wanted to stimulate the economy and increase consumption, the best use of the funds would be to give the poorest 35 million households $10,000 each. I'm sure they would spend it and not pay unwarranted salaries, bonuses or take vacations.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 01/15/2009

Housing prices were driven up to unsustainable levels because of a credit bubble, and now Obama is attempting to keep them there? This is insanity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 PM on 01/15/2009

Keep them there? Have you looked at a house lately, you can probably pay about the same you pay in rent! Houses have lost 10-20% of their value, yes they need to adjust, but trust me the deals are out there, look at short sales, new construction, and foreclosures, make an offer thats in your price range. If you pay $1000 or less in rent, you can get in a house or condo up to about $160,000, its about the same payment, why pay someone else's mortgage, pay yourself to live there. Values should recover in 5-10 years. Especially in high demand areas like FL. FL has so many outstanding deals out there, downtown condos in Orlando are going for around 150K(foreclosed/shortsale), and thats in the best location in town if your a young professional.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 PM on 01/15/2009

He hasn't a clue about economics only knows the common knowledge economic myths of the left. So he honestly believes the government can and will spend US to prosperity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:38 PM on 01/15/2009

Trickle-down theory and the discredited Laffer Curve are great examples of Republicans' misunderstanding how economics works, and part of their grasp of econ is that it's okay if we give hundreds of billions to financial companies and failed mega-corporations - a trickle-down bailout - just not to people, who populate the economy and, besides government spending, account for all domestic aggregate demand in the end. Oh and as long as we're talking about aggregate demand, let's buy foreign products because they're cheaper, and shift production to other countries where production costs are cheaper, and we'll be wealthier as a result? Woops! Yet another failed Republican economic fairy tale.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:25 PM on 01/15/2009

I guess that is why Prize winning Economist on the left and the right agree with his plan becuase he doesn't have a clue. You need to get a clue before speaking. That way you don't look so foolish.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 01/15/2009

rollingdivision,

If your entry were serious, I would ask for an example of a successful national economic system where government was not an important player.

I suggest that with your knowledge you should contact President Obama to point out the error in his thoughts and education, or that you should run for president so that you can lead our nation to greatness. No, really.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 PM on 01/15/2009

I have to agree. It's not my fault that people agreed to pay way to much for a home. Why should I as a tax payer have to pay for it. Home prices have artificially high for way to long. It takes a few eggs to make an omlette.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 01/15/2009

Not so quick buddy, we all have some small responsibility. The least could be you voted in those who have promoted the Housing Bubble it's not just a demand driven issue, the Supply of cheap credit was there to begin with.
Second the more foreclosures, the less tax revenues, the less service delivery, the decreased in school budget and police budget, the increase in unemployment, the increase urban and suburban violence.
So we could all be impacted somehow.
I hate the selfish republican propaganda the 'why should I pay for..." crowd

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:48 PM on 01/15/2009

Who says he is trying to 'keep them there'? He is trying to keep people from being thrown out of their homes. You got a problem with that? Housing prices have already dropped close to 40% since 2007. And it is still dropping. Is that good enough for you?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 PM on 01/15/2009
photo

The " there " is in There Homes, not homeless....is were he is going to keep them. Cheese anyone.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:00 AM on 01/16/2009
photo

The government should have no roll in driving up housing costs. proping up falling housing prices is an attempt to keep housing artifically high. There are not enough people with a salary that can afford the high housing prices, that is why the prices are falling.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:46 PM on 01/15/2009

The market will correct itself once you have some stability.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:17 PM on 01/15/2009

The way this second tranche of the spending bill is shaping up makes a lot more sense, both in terms of social justice as well as addressing the root cause of the recession. There are a lot of financially responsible homeowners who don't deserve to suffer that have had their ownership jeopardized by the carelessness of the financial sector and imprudent home buyers. It's the needs of the former that should have been addressed, at least in part, by the first 350 billion payment from the government.
There's little doubt in my mind that the finance companies claiming that they haven't monitored how the bailouts they've received are being spent are lying. A company that isn't able to provide a basic accounting of its income, however it's derived, shouldn't exist anyway. A large portion of the first bailout payment, I'm sure, has been divvied out to satisfy not just payroll for finance companies, along with the purchases of smaller institutions, but contractually obligated bonuses that should have been prorated according to company performance and haven't, at least for executives.
Supplementing state budgets such as California's to ensure it doesn't have to settle for paying IOUs in salary and ensuring that the citizenry can can continue to support itself and pay taxes is the sensible plan. I only wish it had been enacted earlier, instead of paying money to institutions that may not have needed it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:23 PM on 01/15/2009
photo

It feels so weird that our incoming president is making the the (hopefully) smart, common sense decisions that a lot of us have already worked out in our heads! :-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:17 PM on 01/15/2009

"....Republicans demanded...." Really? That's rich.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:13 PM on 01/15/2009

I think that it is unfair that people like me who still live in rent should pay for other people's mistakes. While should my tax money be used to bail out people and banks who were motivated by greed. Now, there is absolutely no oversight on how the money is being spent and my hard earned money is going to unknown folks. Why must I pay for them messing up? I wish to know how the people who are in problems due to housing crisis will be held accountable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:08 PM on 01/15/2009
photo

Because if the general level of wealth drops for a large segment of Americans, there will be fewer Americans that can purchase the goods and services that the company you work for produces. If your company has fewer customers, you may lose your job. Now you have been affected by the housing crisis even though you did the right things. The cycle perpetuates. Macro-economics 101.

Look, I'm in the same boat as you. I saved for 7 years because I live in the NE and real estate is ridiculous up here and I wanted to have 20% for a down payment. I don't like the notion of bailing out people who acted improperly but I'm more aggrieved at banks that made these loans. Consumers may not be finance experts but I know certain corporations that have armies of finance experts... They are called banks!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:24 PM on 01/15/2009

We cant just blame the banks, people knew what they were getting into, they just didnt make the right bet, and thats the risk you take. But for other homeowners who paid their mortgage or are paying should also not suffer. Let the banks take the hit who sold it and make them adjust their loan to a more affordable rate and monthly pyt. Thats where our money comes in to subsidize their bet (greed).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 01/15/2009

Well I agree, I did not make that mistake either, greed was the primary reason, people thought they could sell that same house for way more in a few years. They didnt ever think this would happen and they should pay for it, but it also affects those who do pay their mtg on time, property values have been slashed due to this assumptive profit never happening and actually, the exact opposite happened.

But if we just sit here and try and point fingers, nothing will get done. The only good thing we have going for us is the purchasing power of Americans (soon that may not be) and how our economy effects other economies. Lets just hope we can stay in that position.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 PM on 01/15/2009

Owning a home is a want. It is not a need! Apartment living may not be the American Dream, but I submit that chasing and conforming to that illusion is what has gotten the nation in the pickle that it is in. Anyone who is at risk of losing their homes, should be protected against homelessness by ensuring that transition into an apartment can be made without unnecessary hassle (credit scores used as measures of whether to rent to a prospective renter is a problem).

Personally, I want to see the remaining TARP money invested in creating jobs and providing training. We must ensure that people are able to support themselves and their families via sustainable work. It remains unclear to me how the infrastructure jobs (construction work) of Barack"s upcoming stimulus package are going to benefit older workers or the segment of the jobless population who have not previously worked in construction.

With so much focus on markets and mortgages (the material), the unspoken danger really is a growing sense of powerlessness and hopelessness. I question how the American People can continue to keep faith with a system that works only for the privileged and connected few? Or why they should.

Work is a necessity and therefore must be mandated as an inalienable right in a capitalistic economic system. Otherwise, what"s the point?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:06 PM on 01/15/2009

Home ownership is not an illusion. It was just made available with relatively low risk (no money out of pocket) and thats where the system failed. I think the banks knew this would happen writing so many bad loans, but they were told to do this the last 10 years, and knew they would probably be propped up if the sh t hit the fan and we can all see they were right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 PM on 01/15/2009

The thrust of my argument is that owning a home is not a need. It is something that we want because we have bought into a dream born of a system that cannot sustain that dream. Ask three different people what the American Dream is and I bet you get three different answers. That by my definition is illusion.

The primary purpose of a home is shelter. However, in America it seems the purpose of the home is *the dream*, the creation of wealth, a false sense of security. I'm not up for any of that.

Furthermore, a system that makes it difficult for many to own a part of the dream that the system itself promotes, is a seriously flawed system.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 PM on 01/15/2009
photo

I HEAR THE HATERS NOW...HOW DARE HE!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 AM on 01/15/2009

I do not want the banks to get any more money - We gave that money with no oversight and they squandered the money - giving bonuses and buying other banks... NO NO NO.. Time to give this to the people.. How many homeowners are there? say 1 million homes at $200,000 apiece would be 200 billion dollars - add this to a decent interest rate refinanced ... and forecloser problem solved or Maybe take each adn every home mortage - pay 1/2 off... up to a maximum amount ...at least then we may not feel so bad about the equity we just lost. II have no problem with those in trouble getting help - getting interest rates /.payments reduced... but then what about us every day people who are paying our mortagages , still are lucky enough to have our jobs...and have lost mega bucks in home values... we deserve something also...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 01/15/2009

Banks only need to make loans to create all the money they want or feel they need.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 PM on 01/15/2009


This money to go towards the housing crisis?

Then you know the GOP won't lift a finget to pass it... In fact, we can be sure they'll fight it every step of the way.
God forbid that republicans will ever do anything that helps the average American, especially the middle class.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 01/15/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (10 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect