As Fraud Scandal Grows, White House Opposes National Moratorium on Foreclosures
Tuesday 12 October 2010
by: Amy Goodman | Democracy Now! | Interview

(Photo: HacksHaven; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)
AMY GOODMAN: A coalition of as many as forty state attorneys general is expected to announce Wednesday a joint investigation into the recent revelations that major lenders may have committed fraud while forcing thousands of people out of their homes. Major banks and lenders are also backpedaling in light of these allegations. On Friday, Bank of America became the first bank to halt foreclosures in all fifty states. JPMorgan Chase and Ally Financial have already suspended foreclosures in twenty-three states.
But both Wall Street and the White House are against the moratoriums. On Monday, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association warned that, quote, "It would be catastrophic to impose a system-wide moratorium on all foreclosures and such actions could do damage to the housing market and the economy."
While senior congressional Democrats have joined the calls for a national moratorium on foreclosures, the White House is arguing against punishing the industry. On Sunday, White House adviser David Axelrod said a national moratorium is not needed.
DAVID AXELROD: We’re working with these institutions. I’m not sure about a national moratorium, because there are in fact valid foreclosures that probably should go forward.
AMY GOODMAN: Shaun Donovan, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said Monday, quote, "Irresponsible banks need to be held accountable, but if we have not found a problem with a bank’s process we do not believe that we should impose a moratorium where that can hurt the market and hurt individual buyers."
Federal Housing Administration Commissioner David Stevens also opposes a nationwide moratorium, telling the Washington Post it’s not the "prudent step to take in this fragile housing market."
Well, for more, I’m joined now on the phone by a Democratic lawmaker who supports a nationwide moratorium on foreclosures and has called for the top ten mortgage banks and lenders to immediately and voluntarily suspend foreclosure proceedings in all fifty states. Congressman Edolphus "Ed" Towns is a New York Democrat, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Congressman Towns, welcome to Democracy Now! Explain exactly what you’re calling for.
REP. EDOLPHUS TOWNS: What I’m calling for is a moratorium on all banks and asking them to—let’s take a look at what the problems are, what went wrong, and to be able to reassure people that were taken out of their homes, in many instances already, and at the same time to let people that are going through the process know that we are going to look at this and look at it carefully, because we’ve been told that there’s this robot signing and of course the fact that there’s no real system in place or to see in terms of whether or not the foreclosures should move forward, people are confused, the fact that there seem to be a lot of discrepancies and outright fraud.
And so, I just think that people who are saying that this is going to hurt—I think that it’s going to help, because once people gain confidence in the fact that they’re being treated fairly and that there’s no discrepancies in the records, then people will feel very comfortable in terms of trying to move forward. But until that happens, you’re always going to have these comments about the fact that that was not done right, it was done unfairly. And, of course, I think there’s enough here for us to stop and to pause and to say, let’s take a look here before we move forward. So a moratorium is definitely in order.
AMY GOODMAN: And what about President Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod saying "there are in fact valid foreclosures that probably should go forward"?
REP. EDOLPHUS TOWNS: Yeah, but I think that even if you have one that should go forward, and you have ten that should not, then, to me, that also says let’s have the moratorium, until we can rectify the situation and make certain that what we are doing is not just hurting people, and at the same time, to look at the mistakes that we made and to be able to clear them up before moving forward. I think that’s the kind of attitude that we should have, not saying that a hundred people are being hurt, there’s one that should not be. I mean, that—I mean, I just think that that kind of thinking has no place in today’s market.
AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Towns, Shaun Donovan, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said that a moratorium could "hurt the market and hurt individual buyers." Why? Because then fewer people would be able to buy cheaper foreclosed homes?
REP. EDOLPHUS TOWNS: Yeah, Shaun Donovan, who I have great admiration and respect for, I think he’s a fine public servant, but I think he’s missing the point here. Many people are losing their homes and being put out of their homes because of the lack of paperwork or fraudulent activities that took place that put them into the bad situation. And we cannot ignore that. And, of course, I understand, in terms of his views, but the point is that it just does not make sense with this day and age, when we have the problems that we have encountered over the past few months. People have lost their homes that should not have lost them, because of the fact that the paperwork was done improperly. All these kind of things. And to walk the streets and to listen to people that the only thing they own is that home and then to lose it in this fashion, and sometimes it’s almost outright trickery—and, of course, I would hope that people like Sean would look at that, look at those situations, and say, "Look, time out. Let’s get this right. Let’s do it right."
Click here to sign up for Truthout’s FREE daily email updates.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s very interesting, Congressman Towns. I mean, you’re in the leadership of the Democratic Party in the House. President Obama, the White House, is now finding itself together with the Republicans in opposing this. You have the White House that pushed through the bailouts of the banks, many of the same banks that have now admitted they foreclosed improperly, or they’re investigating foreclosures that they may have done improperly, of what? How many? Forty state attorneys general now going to launch investigations into fraud by these banks. You have Bank of America canceling how many? Halting foreclosures in all fifty states.
REP. EDOLPHUS TOWNS: Fifty states.
AMY GOODMAN: Yet the Obama administration, as Democrats go out around the country fighting for their seats in reelections, is saying no, they’re siding with the Republicans in siding with the bailed-out banks.
REP. EDOLPHUS TOWNS: Well, let me say that when you have situations that it’s not clear, it seems to me that we should just back up, take a look and see in terms of what needs to be done to fix it. And I really applaud these banks who have stepped out and said, "Look, we’re going to have a moratorium. There’s something wrong here." They’ve acknowledged that. The fact that Bank of America says in all fifty states they’re going to call for a moratorium, you know, I really respect that, because anytime you have a situation where you take a person out of his or her home, and this is all they have, and, of course, it’s done in a fraudulent fashion, I think that really you cannot just move and say that, "Well, yes, there’s a few that might be hurt, but in the meantime, we’re going to look at it." I think that that’s not the kind of thinking that should go on in this day and age.
We should now stop. Let’s correct this. Let’s make certain that we have this under control and that people are going to be treated fairly. Then I think the confidence will come back, and then that’s when the market will go. People will then begin to buy again. People will begin to understand how important it is to do things properly. Until that happens, I think that we’re going to have folks wondering whether or not I’m being treated fairly. And that’s an issue that we cannot have in this day and age. We need to make certain that if a person buys a home, that they’re going to be treated fairly, that the mortgage is going to be handled. And for the person that’s involved in a foreclosure, let’s make certain that all the paperwork and documentation has been checked.
AMY GOODMAN: So, as President Obama says no, and Democrats are fighting for control—maintaining control of the House and finding people all over the country are seeing unemployment at unprecedented rates, foreclosures at unprecedented rates, what do you have to say to your leader, to President Obama?
REP. EDOLPHUS TOWNS: I think the way to take back the House and to hold on to the House is to let people know that you’re about fairness. And once you show them that you’re about fairness, then I think the confidence will be there. I think that to say, "Let us look at the situation, and those that we think that should move forward should move forward, and those that should not should not"—and that, to me, is not the way to convince the American people that you’re concerned, that you’re dedicated, that you’re committed. No, I think the way to do it is to say, "Look, there’s a mess here, and we need to clean it up. And the way we clean it up is let’s have a moratorium now. Let’s look back at what happened and then move forward." And sometimes you have to go back before you can go forward.
AMY GOODMAN: Joining us from Sacramento, California, is Bruce Marks, the founder and CEO of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, a housing services organization that’s been calling for a national moratorium on foreclosures for years. Congressman Towns, I want to thank you for having been with us. I know you have to go. And I want to welcome Bruce Marks.
Bruce Marks, tell us what you’re doing in Sacramento.
BRUCE MARKS: Hi, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: You’re usually in Boston.
BRUCE MARKS: Right. I mean, we’re here, and we’re doing a Save the Dream event here in Sacramento. We’ve had over 25,000 people over the last four days come through who are at risk of foreclosure, and we’re restructuring mortgages, meaning people are saving $500, $1,000 a month, you know, bringing interest rates down to as low as two percent. And people are sleeping overnight, because we’re going twenty-four hours. And we just got through with Los Angeles, doing the same thing for six days for over 125 straight hours. So, clearly—in Los Angeles, we had over 45,000 homeowners come through. So, clearly, it’s just as devastating here as it’s been over the last year or two.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to break, then come back. Bruce Marks is founder and CEO of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, has been calling for a moratorium on foreclosures for years. I remember when we had him on as the banks were being bailed out. He said first and foremost is a nationwide moratorium on foreclosures. We’ll also be joined by the lawyer for a woman who thought her house was being burglarized. She ran into the bathroom with her phone, called 911, and it turns out it was the bank who sent an agent to come into her house and change her locks. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
It appears I was correct in
Tue, 10/12/2010 - 14:25 — Anonymous (not verified)It appears I was correct in doubting Obama's intention in his "pocket veto" of the banking bill the other day. The apologists were cheering: "Yay! Daddy refused to sign it! See, he's on our side!" While I saw it as merely kicking the can down the road so that no offensive decision had to be made(or seen being made) until after the election. Looks like daddy isn't on our side after all.
Yeah, we had such high hopes
Tue, 10/12/2010 - 14:43 — Anonymous (not verified)Yeah, we had such high hopes for the integrity of Obama... he seems to have been swallowed up by the Powers That Be.
The government always cows to the big corporate interests, no matter how corrupt or evil. The real victims in the housing mess will never be treated fairly. I lost a home in the beginning - a mobile home - through a forced sale, because the park manager knew she could buy it if she could force me out, and make a huge profit. I would still be in that home if not for that. But my daughter and I bought a house afterwards. We were lied to, bullied, and given a false appraisal. We were given false hopes of redoing the loan after a couple years, but the bottom fell out of the market and our modest little home was worthless. We lost it after pouring every last dime we had into trying to save it.
WHO CARES? Not the White House, not Congress, not anyone. I have worked all my life, and I have NOTHING to show for it. NOTHING.
Please, please
Tue, 10/12/2010 - 14:43 — Anonymous (not verified)Please, please Obama---NATIONALIZE THE BANKS!!!
The bank bonuses are OUT OF CONTROL, expected to top 2009 levels at $144Billion, while unemployment and poverty levels continue to rise, and foreclosures, er, property confiscation are now widespread and rampant!!!
This is OUTRAGEOUS THIEVERY AND NEEDS TO BE REGULATED AND THE BRAKES PUT ON THIS NOW!!!
No surprise here at all, HR
Tue, 10/12/2010 - 14:54 — Corrupt Citi (not verified)No surprise here at all, HR 3808 was quietly thrust through the Senate with unanimous consent. It would have allowed Banks to bring fraud on the courts to take back homes. One set of laws for Banks one set for everyone else. Ellen Brow's article shows how this is a bit more then just 'flawed paperwork', it's indicative of massive fraud from the get go. Axlerod's commentary on Sunday exemplified how panicked the banks are, as he kept saying this scrutiny should be sped up.
What's the f$%ing hurry? Well, we know what the hurry is.
About NACA, is Marks
Tue, 10/12/2010 - 15:13 — NACA Transparency (not verified)About NACA, is Marks actually "forcing" banks to reduce prinicple? If NACA isn't able to to do this, the program (HAMP/CRA) may not be that helpful - especially if Banks don't voluntarily work with them.
Why the theatrical all-nighters in rented conference centers? People have to fly in from out of town, wait for hours. Why is that even necessary?
We've all heard horror storiesr rip off artists promising forensic audits, taking peoples cash, and taking their homes. This isn't what NACA is doing, but what are they really doing? Are they bringing this massive problem under control?
Donovan at HUD is an example
Tue, 10/12/2010 - 15:20 — HUD for Banks and Realtors (not verified)Donovan at HUD is an example of a liar appointed by money, not any Democratic process. As if the entire housing bubble wasn't caused by irresponsible banks themselves! If the Banks had been allowed to manipulate prices in precious metals every single f$%king one of them would be insolvent and hopefully in jail. And they should beinsolvent now, if it weren't for the taxpayers bailouts. The more people know, the more disgust they should have for the absolute looting that the rich are waging on everyone else, with the full approval of our Government.
I have a mortgage with GMAC,
Tue, 10/12/2010 - 16:30 — Jerry Johns (not verified)I have a mortgage with GMAC, went thru the loan modification an they raised my mortgage payment 85 cents ??????
Why, given his history,
Tue, 10/12/2010 - 16:38 — Lavrenti Beria (not verified)Why, given his history, there would be any expectation that this zero would do anything but support the position of the banks is positively mind-numbing to me. In the teeth of what ought to be all-too obvious, well intentioned people continue to cling to the childish notion that Obama is somehow operating against his instincts when its comes to decisions making on questions such as this. What could be clearer than that Obama is a social fascist? Expect that from him for God's sake!
Kleptocracy! There is no
Tue, 10/12/2010 - 18:52 — Bob (not verified)Kleptocracy! There is no other way to describe the government. A pack of thieves owned by the rich. Tweedledum & Tweedledee, the repubs & the dems are no different & the president; what was he before he went into politics; a corporate lawyer & his wife as well. I understand about bread & circuses distracting the people but this is just so right in your face; the screwing of millions of your friends & neighbours, yes millions of decent people thrown out of their homes & the bankers wallowing in tens & hundreds of billions of bonuses. If you, the people (forget your government, it's bought & paid for) don't do something they will be making you work more years for less pension & you will have to pay more of your medical bills with less pension income. What does it take to get you in the streets; are you total cowards or fools; you're next, don't you get that, they are gonna throw you in the oven, fight now or lose more later!
As usual, Obama and his
Tue, 10/12/2010 - 23:35 — Anonymous (not verified)As usual, Obama and his administration are on the side of the banks and the corporations. Just like they were when they fought single payer and the public option and colluded with the the health insurance companies. As they were when they opposed breaking up the banks. I'm a Democrat and I'll vote for my progressive Congressional representative, but not for my plutocrat sellout Democratic Senator. I'm sick of holding my nose and voting for Democrats that sell out ordinary Americans. Where is Bernie Sanders when we need him in New York? Alas, we have Chuck Schumer . . . And the Republicans are crazy and destructive . . . maybe best to abstain.
LOOK...IF HE HAD SIGNED IT
Wed, 10/13/2010 - 03:31 — Anonymous (not verified)LOOK...IF HE HAD SIGNED IT AND NOT SENT IT BACK CONSUMERS WOULDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THEIR MORTGAGES. KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD? SHOULD HE HAVE SIGNED IT THEN OR JUST VETOED IT? YOU'RE DAMNED IF YOU DO AND DAMNED IF YOU DON'T. NO WONDER DEMOCRATS CAN'T GET IT TOGETHER.
So, the Democratic
Wed, 10/13/2010 - 08:51 — Alan8 (not verified)So, the Democratic administration agrees with Republicans that unemployed people should be thrown out of their homes. Par for the course.
Yesterday, I got an email from Senator Carl Levin, a liberal Democrat. I generally support the Green Party, but was unsure about Carl, since he appears pretty liberal.
Carl's email urged me to contribute to Blanche Lincoln's campaign! Blanche Lincoln is a Republican-lite who's a solid supporter of corporate/wealthy interests!
That did it for me: The Green Party gets Carl's vote from now on!
I'm NEVER AGAIN supporting this corporate-shill party of NAFTA, the WTO, the Patriot Act, no universal health care, a unitary president, genetically-modified "foods", and mass government wiretapping.
Not to mention:
Corporate media consolidation. Government disinformation directed at Americans. No prosecution of Bush-Administration torturers. No real investigation of neocons' involvement in 9/11 attacks. Fascists on the Supreme Court.
I vote Green Party now! It feels good!
Blanche Lincoln is *the*
Wed, 10/13/2010 - 09:13 — AlanEight (not verified)Blanche Lincoln is *the* Senator who said that the giant Wall Street banks need to give up their lucrative derivative trading businesses if they want the government (i.e. taxpayers) to continue insuring their commercial deposits. That was a huge attack, and it really pissed off Wall Street.
Those bastards are now throwing money as a result of this "insolence", hoping to destroy her politically. Any Senator who tells Wall Street to go fuck themselves should be voted for.
So you'll vote for this
Wed, 10/13/2010 - 15:19 — Alan8 (not verified)So you'll vote for this corporate shill because she has her "badge of honor", while ignoring her pro-corporate record?
You're a dupe.
I'm with you, Alan8 (the
Mon, 10/25/2010 - 13:17 — Frances in California (not verified)I'm with you, Alan8 (the digit, not the letters): Talk is Cheap.