Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > April > 14 > Entry
Editorial: Lender can bring down neighborhoods
There are a lot of people today who don’t know the word “redlining.” That’s because the practice was exposed, criticized and made illegal.
In the 1970s and into the ’80s, it was a word that was much in the news. In some places, it was as understood as the phrase “driving while black” is today.
The word was shorthand for a practice by banks and real estate agents whereby they didn’t lend money for mortgages, or try to sell homes, in certain neighborhoods, usually black and/or poor neighborhoods. The offense limited home ownership, and it promoted segregation. And it was discrimination.
On Sunday, April 11, the Dayton Daily News published stories about an analysis of a half-million Ohio home loan applications. Staff writer Ken McCall did both shoe-leather and computer-assisted reporting to determine who is getting home loans and who is not, based on data that banks are required to submit to federal regulators.
The findings: Blacks are much more likely to be denied home loans than whites, and that finding is true even after accounting for income.
In fact, blacks were refused loans at a rate more than 10 percentage points higher than whites at every income level. Often the determining factor was where the home is situated.
Is redlining back?
Even those who have been denied loans said they didn’t believe someone was looking at the race of a applicant and rejecting those from blacks. In most institutions, there would be safeguards against that sort of illegal, repugnant behavior.
The better explanation is that many banking decisions are dictated by rigid formulas or computer programs.
From home loans to credit cards, lenders routinely make decisions that mystify customers. How often have you heard about people who can’t get a loan because they’ve never had debt (so the bank isn’t sure if they’ll make their payments) and others who can’t get credit because they owe too much, though they’ve never missed a payment?
The recent collapse of the credit markets and the attention that’s brought have exposed all sorts of reckless and nonsensical banking policies.
For example, even at the same time that subprime lenders have been targeting poor and minority neighborhoods for high-cost loans in amounts beyond borrowers’ ability to repay them, traditional banks (some of which have subprime affiliates) have driven hard bargains with those who could afford mortgages and refinancings. They blame the neighborhoods borrowers live in or want to buy in.
Even people with good incomes have been denied loans because of foreclosed on or dilapidated properties nearby.
Of course, banks want to know they can get their money back, should a homeowner decide to sell a property. But if their credit policies all but forbid loans in struggling or marginal neighborhoods, those neighborhoods might never rebound. Credit drives investment.
Appraisals play a big role, too, in determining what level of credit is available. There’s no question that, nationally, banks have, in the past, accepted ridiculously inflated appraisals for properties in well-off neighborhoods. But when it came to poor neighborhoods, they were more demanding about proof of a property’s worth.
That practice opened the floodgates to subprime scoundrels who were all too happy to overstate the worth of properties in low-income neighborhoods, which resulted in literally millions of foreclosures.
Now homeowners who have stayed put through all of this are being punished because abandoned houses are driving down the worth of their properties. If they want to get a new roof or windows, they can’t get a home equity loan; if they want to sell, buyers can’t get loans.
The indisputable point is that lenders can determine whether whole neighborhoods live or die. Bankers are not setting out to bring them down, but the unintended consequences of their policies can still ensure that the poor stay poor or get poorer.
Congress is trying to wrestle with how much to regulate lenders and how to make sure they aren’t allowed to run amok again. The influence they have over the viability of communities and cities has to be part of that discussion.
Permalink | Comments (22) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Predatory lending
Tweet
Comments
By Quentin
April 14, 2010 6:38 PM | Link to this
When congress holds hearings and grills the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie like they did private banks, then they can start to say they are doing something. Until then, show trials and regulations that benifit the big donors from banks and realtors mean nothing. Just like their refusal to go on the same medical plans they are pushing for others.
By Quentin
April 14, 2010 6:39 PM | Link to this
When congress holds hearings and grills the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie like they did private banks, then they can start to say they are doing something. Until then, show trials and regulations that benifit the big donors from banks and realtors mean nothing. Just like their refusal to go on the same medical plans they are pushing for others.
By Anon
April 14, 2010 10:57 PM | Link to this
Just like usual, the liberal press assumes that racism is the reason for bank lending policies, with only anecdotal evidence to make their point. Just because you and I may have the same income doesn’t mean we’re the same credit risk. And no lender I know is going to lend someone $50,000 for a property that’s worth $30,000—it’s simple economics, not racism. Of course, economics doesn’t make a good story, so the liberal press once again has to make the evidence fit the charge they want to make to prove their point. It’s indeed tragic that homes have depreciated (of course, this is happening in all communities, it’s just not newsworthy in even middle class neighborhoods; I’m currently upside-down on the mortgage in my home), and the honest people that remain in these communities are bearing the brunt of the poor decisions of others. But, this is another of the unintended consequences of our government REQUIRING lenders to offer subprime lending (see Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to individuals that couldn’t/wouldn’t pay back these loans, causing the housing market bubble in the first place. But we wouldn’t want to put the finger of blame where it belongs (on the Democrats in Congress that wrote the legislation that enabled Fannie/Freddie to run amok, and the Democratic President that signed it) when we could cry racism and blame the banking industry, would we?
By becca
April 15, 2010 5:33 AM | Link to this
Then maybe the author of the article should have also included stories from poor neighborhoods on the east side of town. The sad part is that there are people, like the family that lives on Lorenz, who can afford to improve their property, and re-invest in the neighborhood, and they are being denied that.
By jay
April 15, 2010 7:42 AM | Link to this
What do you call a person that Moves to Washington Township From The city of Dayton so Her Child won’t have to go to Dayton Schools, Then spew’s her Liberal Views for every body else to live by. You call this Person ELLEN BELCHER
By joe_mamma
April 15, 2010 8:27 AM | Link to this
Check your premise Ellen. A lender cannot determine whether a neighborhood lives or dies. If you really think that is the case then you have a heck of an opportunity to make a lot money by starting a bank and making loans to the folks in these neighborhoods. Put your money where your mouth is in other words instead of telling other people what to do with their money.
By bobby
April 15, 2010 8:39 AM | Link to this
Last fall, at Mike Turner’s forum on the housing crisis, a Brookings Institute scholar gave the bad news: Demand in Dayton is less than supply. Seventy seven percent of residential sales occur in a geographic area that comprises one third of the city. In another one third of the city,only six percent of sales occur. If you own property in the wrong area (location, location, location) your inability to get an equity loan may be related to the fact you have NO EQUITY. Ken McCall’s story and this editorial imply that there is some sort of systemic racism by lenders and appraisers. These generalizations about race are useless without some statistical data that compares credit scores and debt to income ratios. Banks make money by loaning money that people pay back… There was an interesting question that came to mind when reading Mr. McCall’s article. How can the county auditor value a home at four time the value that a bank is willing to lend. Is the Auditor taking advantage of these people by inflating their values and taking more property taxes than they should be paying?
By davidss2
April 15, 2010 8:40 AM | Link to this
The Sunday article was a racist joke out of the 70s and 80s. Everything is racism in the leftover hippie liberal crowd. =======Comparing data on incomes without looking at the past history and current employment and future income streams is silly, but makes good headlines for a dying paper. Even the quotes in the articles contradict the headlines splashed for the racism effect. Oh well, maybe more papers got sold in West Dayton to those who like to feel the oppression is based on skin color rather than economics.———-Odd this coming after the liberals in congress over the decades forced banking to make risky loans to people who had no dream of repaying them.————If Ellen and Martin feel so strongly about investing, move the printing plant into land in West Dayton. Or put your offices there instead of next to the “educated class” at UD. Or go buy up houses there since you feel high income borrowers should get loans on risky house mortgages. ———-trying to throw in racist words like redlining makes the article less credible that its own facts and quotes make it. ##########Better would have been to write an article about people not wanting discipline in the schools, not wanting responsibility for crimes committed by folks living in depressed areas, lack of jobs, welfare payments for girls having babies for hire, and a city government that for years condoned those because they created voters for the democrats. Bye bye, McLin.
By bobby
April 15, 2010 9:05 AM | Link to this
The people bringing down neighborhoods are not lenders, but people (example: a former school board president and her judge husband )who ignor their responsibilities and walk away from their homes.
By J
April 15, 2010 9:13 AM | Link to this
Is it racism? Doubtful. However, what’s going on does have connections to racist practices of the past. Deny it all you like, but outlawing something doesn’t just erase the effects, and those effects last for years. David, you’re working off a false premise. The subprime mortgage became prevalent under a GOP controlled Congress and the boom in housing ownership was something Bush bragged about. Also a false premise is the idea that Fannie and Freddie caused this. Yes, they participated, but they are secondary buyers, or bundlers, of loans made by the companies we deal with. NOBODY forced those companies to give out any subprime loans, Those lenders had an idea about investing in an ever-expanding bubble and jumped in, aided by laws THEY lobbied for in a GOP congress. Did the Dems oppose all of this, thoiugh? No, which is as bad. But never forget, david, we’ve been running on Reagonomics, and the absurdities it can be pushed to, for three decades. The private financing sector had control of this and the polticians who are supposed to legislate and especially any regulatory institutions. It’s a joke to blame liberalism, when it’s market philosophies pushed beyond recognition that got us here.
By joe_mamma
April 15, 2010 9:42 AM | Link to this
J…I’m sorry but you have got your head in the sand. You cannot gloss over the role of government played in causing the crisis. Who controls interest rates? The Federal Reserve. Who controls the money supply? The Federal Reserve. Who dictates financial institution’s reserves, thereby determining how much money they have to loan out? The Federal Reserve. Who passes legislation demanding that banks grant loans to minorities and who dictates what factors may and may not be used to evaluate credit worthiness? The Federal government and the U.S. Congress. Who requires banks and mortgage companies to pass periodic reviews to insure the percentage of loan applications from minorities is the same as from everyone else? The Federal government. Who created the secondary market for the securities containing these subprime loans? The Federal government through the policies followed by government-sponsored entities Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association and the Government National Mortgage Association. Who rated these securities “AAA” to anesthetize the financial industry against their risk ? The government-controlled, government-approved investment rating cartel. Who requires all financial firms to use the ratings put out by that cartel? The Securities and Exchange Commission. And why were these government-sponsored entities created? To insure a “sufficient flow” of credit into the housing market for the “needy” and the “uncreditworthy” — because those “selfish” and “greedy” bankers and mortgage lenders, left to their own devices, would not make such loans. Who filed 13 major lawsuits against major lenders charging them with discrimination in lending practices for not loaning sufficient funds to minorities? The Justice Department of the Federal government under the Clinton administration. Who regulates the home mortgage sector of the American economy? The Federal government, through the following agencies: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO). Has any legislation been enacted dictating what policies and practices should be followed by all these regulators? Yes, including The Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Community Reinvestment Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the National Affordable Housing Act, the Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, the Updated Community Reinvestment Act and the American Dream Downpayment Act. Who issued a booklet titled “Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending” to all U.S. mortgage lenders — a booklet that derides as “arbitrary and unreasonable” such traditional credit standards as a 20% down payment or a history of paying one’s bills on time or a steady job yielding reliable income — a booklet that includes side-bar reminders of the fines and jail terms that await any lender found to be deficient in fighting discrimination by lending to less-than-creditworthy applicants? The Federal Reserve Board. Who, in 2002, set a goal of artificially boosting the home ownership rate from 65% of households (the average for the preceding two decades) to a rate of 70% — and directed all Federal home loan regulators and agencies to communicate this goal to the market? The Federal Government, at the behest of the Bush administration. Who, after dropping interest rates from 6% in 2001 to 1% in 2004, publicly criticized lenders for making too many traditional, fixed rate mortgages, and declared that “many homeowners might have saved tens of thousands of dollars had they held adjustable rate mortgages”? Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Who called a “White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership” and then pledged to “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to meet his goal of “increasing the number of minority homeowners to at least 5.5 million families by the end of the decade”? The President of the United States and Head of the Executive Branch of the Federal government, George Bush. Who, in 2004, following Bush’s lead, promised to “close America’s homeownership gap” via “underwriting experiments that redefine creditworthiness” and promised to create “six million new homeowners” over the next 10 years? Federal National Mortgage Association chairman Franklin Raines. Who precipitated the adjustable rate foreclosure crises by running interest rates back up from 1% to 5% in 2006? The Federal Reserve Board. Who believes that private mortgage lenders — free from any pressure from government — free from any rules or regulations dictating their lending practices — with no implicit government guarantees to make good on any loans that might go bad — with no government-sponsored entities to take risky mortgages off their hands — — with no government agency having the power bail them out if they failed — simply woke up one morning in this new condition of total freedom and decided to flush their money down the toilet by trashing lending standards and making loans in the blind, to people who had little long term chance of repaying it? Dedicated statist and interventionists with an unlimited power to evade reality.
By J
April 15, 2010 11:01 AM | Link to this
Joe, I glossed over because they’re unimportant. You keep thinking government is a separate entity. It’s a puppet entity. Any time that a regulation is set, rate changed, or anything like that, is done with, at the very least, permission of the industry involved. Most times, the policies are WRITTEN by those industries. And even IF the financial sector didn’t hang themselves by the rope they made, they didn’t have to tie the noose by betting on the bundles in a completely unregulated market. And make no mistake, the CDO market is not regulated at all, which, on its own, shows that a market can’t regulate itself. Break it down s a bit, and I’m saying just because Fannie and Freddie would buy the mortgages, doesn’t mean a lender has to make risky loans. There is nothing done in DC, by either party, without the permission of the particular industry involved. The financial sector wanted a larger market, they got it by expanding into subprime loans. They wanted a new way to create ‘wealth’, so they got the CDO market, all the while selling the philosophy that, since they are wealthey, they are obviously smart and talented and this plant can’t go wrong. And the politicians they bought still sell that idea… because they’re still bought. You watch… this reform bill going around now will miss the mark by a huge margin. And a GOP bill would, as well.
By inDayton
April 15, 2010 12:41 PM | Link to this
Joe, Nice to pin it all on government. No accountability on Wall Street. Got it! Read two books which show a different pattern. The Big Short by Michael Lewis. And then the Roof Caved In by David Faber Those books don’t point out the government managing the Wall Street Ponzi schemes. No doubt government interferes in free markets. Every government in the world does it. However, free markets without proper checks and balances have serious, serious issues. Don’t destroy capitalism. Don’t get governments totally out either. Find the right balance.
By joe_mamma
April 15, 2010 1:03 PM | Link to this
J…IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. Why do you libs keep your heads in the sand? BIG BUSINESS INTERESTS DON’T MIND BIG GOVERNMENT. It is easier, cheaper and more profitable for big business to manipulate government and have government pick the winners than it is to actually compete against others in the private sector. You can insist that the CDO exchange market was unregulated if you must, but those investment instruments were backed by assets being exchanged in markets that were regulated, manipulated and distorted heavily by the government and their agents. Blaming the crash of the CDO market on no regulation is like saying a turd sandwich tastes bad because its on wheat bread. ITS MADE OF TURDS!!!
By joe_mamma
April 15, 2010 1:30 PM | Link to this
inDayton, Oh the private sector also deserves blame. The government sets the rules though. Everyone seems to forget that and just glosses over governments role in the disaster. BTW…can you name for me one absolutely free market? I can’t think of one. You can’t say that a free market has serious serious problems when there has never been a free market. On the other hand you can’t name a heavily government regulated market that does not have serious problems.
By J
April 15, 2010 4:50 PM | Link to this
Joe, we’re talking circles around the same thing. You like to blame the government, the puppet. I’d rather go after the puppetmaster. I’ll draw an analogy; a group lobbies, with lots of cash, to get a new gun legalized and cheap prices for the ammo of that gun. That group gets in a circle and shoots everyone in, and out, of the circle. Do you blame lawmakers for not outlawing guns and ammo, or do you blame the wielders of the weapon? The biggest problem wasn’t the turds in the sandwich re: CDO market.. it’s that nobody KNEW that they were exchanging on turds. It’s a DARK, unregulated market, and all those CDOs were based on AAA-rated bundles. The ratings were issued by entities who are paid for by the very institutions trading those bundles, but that’s all part of the problem. And, again, NOBODY FORCED any storefront lender, who we actually deal with, to make one single loan of any type. It’s a ludicrous assertion. However, they wanted to be able to make those loans, they lobbied for the ability, and they got it. Then blew their own heads off, along with ours.
By J
April 15, 2010 5:05 PM | Link to this
Joe, I don’t have a problem, really, with being angry at DC, but I think it’s pointless. Elect an all-new congress and WH, and do you think anything changes? No, it won’t. I am starting to think that DC attracts a certain type the way Hollywood does. Or DC will corrupt, at least, most DC politicians to make a wholesale change pointless. There has to be changes in the system itself before the connection is broen and real, effective change is made. There are some possible ways to help that along vis-a-vis voting, but I’m not sure. The Tea Party has a chance to get the ball rolling, but I think they’ll miss for three reasons. First, they might organize locally, but they have a national agenda, and third parties never succeed with a top-down approach. Start with city board and mayoral elections, state senators and congressment, drop the national agenda until you can compete on that level. Two, the GOP is trying, and succeeding, in adopting the rhetoric the way they did with the social conservative/Evangelicals (remember, they did nothing on that front, but sure talked a good game?). Last, and soon to decrease in importance; while the goals might be noble and worthy, there are people who use the platform to express racist views. There is action going on to get rid of that element, which will be nothing but beneficial for the Tea Party. I hope they do some of this, but I am not sanguine. I foresee another Perot-party ending.
By joe_mamma
April 16, 2010 8:00 AM | Link to this
J…. I do think we are talking circles about the same thing. However, I still think you are looking at symptoms and not causes. Although well intentioned government policy more often than not creates perverse incentives and distorts the market and creates moral hazard. Government has gone from creating a level playing field to inserting itself and picking favorites and lessening risk for select actors. That creates the market distortions and market darkness you talk about. No one knows what’s real anymore but figures its safe because its got a government stamp on it. Regarding what to do about it. First and foremost I think folks need to drop party labels. They are poison. Instead the debate needs to be moved to “what is the proper role of the federal government?”. Everyone running for office should be asked that question. Once you start talking about the role of government I think you start to see a dividing line between the big government/statist/socialists and the small government/conservative/libertarians. Oh well…I appreciate your thoughts and I’m glad we’re on the same side.
By bobby
April 16, 2010 7:00 PM | Link to this
The April 16,2010 Dayton Business Journal stories “Area Contends with glut of underwater homes” and “County officials worry about current property reappraisals” explains in great detail why any refinance, FOR ANYONE, in this region is difficult, at best. These stories should be required reading for Ken McCall, “the DDN”s “housing experts” the DDN loves to quote, and the editorial staff.
By Doug Smith
April 16, 2010 7:07 PM | Link to this
Wed., April 14th an Editorial title: Lender can bring down neighborhoods. Are you kidding me? The banks are responsible for bailing out neighborhoods? Is redlining back? Those comments are some of the biggest bunch of race baiting hooey this paper has written. This is not a race issue. This is a location issue, and an affected region’s substandard acceptance of the practices that surround them. Not every neighborhood has a crime issue. Not every neighborhood has an issue with dilapidated housing. Not every neighborhood has educational issues. But every neighborhood is affected by their regions that have these problems. I am curious, how many individuals, the article discussed, live in a region that constantly place high on the educational report card, or where crime rates are typically low? Those that run the banks have recently learned a very hard lesson. One that required “The United States Tax Paying Citizens” to fix. Banks are in the business of money. The more money they make, the better their business. As an appraiser, I know first hand the scrutiny each and every report written receives. The banks do not want to make another bad investment, and have “WE THE CITIZENS”, bailing them out again. If The Dayton Daily News is so interested in saving these areas…why not have the paper open a lending institution? One with the sole purpose of lending money in areas, where foreclosure rates are sky high, property values are in steep decline, and the likelihood of receiving a return on investment is low? What ever happened to the American Spirit? This country was built by individuals with strong personalities and their willingness to work hard to make a living. This used to be a country filled with citizens that would be embarrassed to default on loans, to accept welfare, to rely on other’s to fix their problems. Now people feel entitled. We have become a country full of entitlement. A country our forefathers would be ashamed of. All I see is a blame game. Blame the banks. Blame the appraisers. Blame the government. What about looking in the mirror? Just yesterday, I was driving in a neighborhood smack dab in the middle of an area described by the article. What did I see? It is 11am, and on one corner I see a drug deal occurring, and throughout the neighborhood were kids, mostly early teens, running around. Now I don’t know if the kids should have been out of school, but I did not see any parental supervision. Shouldn’t a responsible parent be visible in an area where a drug deal is occurring? Shouldn’t those involved in the drug deal been afraid to be caught? How about fixing the schools? I do believe The Dayton City School District is perennially on the wrong end of the report card. How about fixing the crime rate? Who wants to live an unsafe area? You solve the school and crime issue, the area becomes more desirable. If an area is more desirable, property values will increase. Why in the world is it the banks responsibility to save neighborhoods, when those same neighborhoods accept their surroundings?
By Doug Smith
April 16, 2010 7:08 PM | Link to this
Wed., April 14th an Editorial title: Lender can bring down neighborhoods. Are you kidding me? The banks are responsible for bailing out neighborhoods? Is redlining back? Those comments are some of the biggest bunch of race baiting hooey this paper has written. This is not a race issue. This is a location issue, and an affected region’s substandard acceptance of the practices that surround them. Not every neighborhood has a crime issue. Not every neighborhood has an issue with dilapidated housing. Not every neighborhood has educational issues. But every neighborhood is affected by their regions that have these problems. I am curious, how many individuals, the article discussed, live in a region that constantly place high on the educational report card, or where crime rates are typically low? Those that run the banks have recently learned a very hard lesson. One that required “The United States Tax Paying Citizens” to fix. Banks are in the business of money. The more money they make, the better their business. As an appraiser, I know first hand the scrutiny each and every report written receives. The banks do not want to make another bad investment, and have “WE THE CITIZENS”, bailing them out again. If The Dayton Daily News is so interested in saving these areas…why not have the paper open a lending institution? One with the sole purpose of lending money in areas, where foreclosure rates are sky high, property values are in steep decline, and the likelihood of receiving a return on investment is low? What ever happened to the American Spirit? This country was built by individuals with strong personalities and their willingness to work hard to make a living. This used to be a country filled with citizens that would be embarrassed to default on loans, to accept welfare, to rely on other’s to fix their problems. Now people feel entitled. We have become a country full of entitlement. A country our forefathers would be ashamed of. All I see is a blame game. Blame the banks. Blame the appraisers. Blame the government. What about looking in the mirror? Just yesterday, I was driving in a neighborhood smack dab in the middle of an area described by the article. What did I see? It is 11am, and on one corner I see a drug deal occurring, and throughout the neighborhood were kids, mostly early teens, running around. Now I don’t know if the kids should have been out of school, but I did not see any parental supervision. Shouldn’t a responsible parent be visible in an area where a drug deal is occurring? Shouldn’t those involved in the drug deal been afraid to be caught? How about fixing the schools? I do believe The Dayton City School District is perennially on the wrong end of the report card. How about fixing the crime rate? Who wants to live an unsafe area? You solve the school and crime issue, the area becomes more desirable. If an area is more desirable, property values will increase. Why in the world is it the banks responsibility to save neighborhoods, when those same neighborhoods accept their surroundings?
By davidss2
April 17, 2010 10:20 AM | Link to this
I’m glad to see there are many others who recognize the article as thinly-veiled race-baiting trash. Statistics misused. —————as for J, Janet Reno as I recall used her bully pulpit to threaten that more lending had to occur to people who had no chance of keeping a job and paying off the mortgage, government guaranteed, of course. That was Bill Clinton’s nasty Attorney General there. Since, Dodd, Waters, Frankfurter, and many others all demand loans. I listened to a 700 AM radio talk show yesterday where the mortgage papers adjusted to an amount equal to people’s salary—no hope of paying a mortgage equal to your income. There are those things like food, electricity, that people need to spend some of that money on. Is that reasonable government mandating that kind of mortgage for the sake of “equality”?