Rep. Brad Miller - Shows Himself to be an Enabler of the Incestuous Relationship Between Bank and Government Via Ezra Klein...

polifrog



Ezra Klein interviewed Rep. Brad Miller about the mortgage market. The news of the day was the Senate's passage of HR-3808 and how it relates to notary difficulties in the foreclosure process, so his interview pivoted in that direction. The foreclosure difficulties were succinctly covered by Ed Towns:

Ed Towns:
The chairman of the House Oversight Committee is asking the nation’s 10 largest banks to suspend all foreclosures until they can investigate whether they also have been plagued by shoddy foreclosure work.

...

The problems that have surfaced lately involve foreclosure processors forging documents, failing to figure out who actually owns properties and various other issues that could be pushing some people out of homes unfairly, or at least denying them chances to solve their problems.

Brad Miller alluded to the above in his interview with Ezra Klein, but somehow managed to side step discussion of HR-3808 which would force all states to accept documents notarized outside the state. NC, for example, has quite stringent notary requirements and has thus had fewer title problems than Florida. HR-3808 would require NC. to respect the substandard notary rules of Florida. We will never know if Brad Miller supported this bill as it was passed by voice vote and no record was kept. The bill went on to be passed in the Senate in the same manner. A ccountability is conveniently difficult. The bill is now waiting for Obama's signature or veto.

Brad Miller later went on to say in the Ezra Klein interview that,

There is massive potential liability for the securitizers, which are mostly the biggest banks. The contract was that if mortgages didn’t meet certain requirements, then the securitizer would buy them back.

...

Someone said there might be a second round of bank insolvencies because of this and there might need to be more TARP. There is no chance that Congress would pass more TARP.

...

...it’s all bad for the economy for the mortgage market to be in such turmoil, to not know whether the right to foreclose will be enforceable. It’s a great deal of uncertainty and makes it much harder for private investors to get back into the mortgage market.

[bold added]

Another TARP is is not needed as long as the banks can continue to clear a profit off of the difference between what they pay the Fed to borrow money and what the Treasury pays the Banks to borrow the same money.

According to Miller it seems the banks are bound by contract to "make good" on an enormous amount of shoddy product, but the only solution he gives is "No more TARP". I suggest we obey the law.

He then expresses concern over the uncertainty of not knowing "whether the right to foreclose will be enforceable." What? There is no uncertainty when contract law is enforced rather than bent to the benefit of the banks Miller seems so beholden to. Miller's disrespect for law is what is creating uncertainty. Of course, Miller has to do what he can for the customers of so much of the debt he produces through over spending. Apparently law is only for those without influence in DC.

There is an incestuous relationship between the banks and government; Miller is only an enabler.

Update:
For added clarity.

What Brad Miller is saying in the quotes above is that current law, due to the contracts signed between the parties involved, requires the banks to buy back their substandard products. As Brad Miller says, "the liabilities for the biggest banks will be enormous." Miller gives no alternative to following the letter of the contract, but implies doing so would be ... bad.

I have solution -- respect the word of the contract.

Secondly Miller worries "whether the right to foreclose will be enforceable."

So, Brad Miller worries that the banks will not be able to foreclose on the properties because they were securitized into a crappy product that the banks are bound by contract to repurchase.

If the banks sold a "shoddy product" with a "return policy" they should be required to live up to their contract and if that means they will not be able to foreclose, then so be it.

Brad Miller is simply running interference for America's financial institutions which don't want to live up to their contracts. If Brad Miller supported following the letter of the contracts there would be no tumult, instead he sides with the banks and their disregard for the contracts and our nation is subjected to the turmoil Miller references.

out