Last week the House passed legislation that aims to refinance troubled mortgages and increase demand among first-time homebuyers. The President has threatened a veto, and the position of the Senate is unclear. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press050808.shtml But, regardless, at some point federal intervention still appears likely. The policy differences aren't as large as rhetoric implies, and enactment of some type of legislation could slightly help the decline in home prices by reducing the number of foreclosures and increasing demand among first-time homebuyers - at a cost to taxpayers.

There is no agreement on the bill yet as several Republicans view the plans as a bailout for lenders, speculators and irresponsible homeowners. The program involves giving struggling homeowners a new mortgage backed by the FHA. The Democrats believe that it would cost much less compared to the potential government exposure with the Fed's guarantee in the Bear Stearns case, and as mentioned above the president may veto it. On top of Congressional differences, lies the threat of a White House veto of the bill, asking the question, "Why should the taxpayer, through the program, provide a guarantee of principal if lenders agree to reduce the principal of a borrower's current mortgage?" This is a volunteer program by which a mortgage company would be required to write-down the value of a delinquent loan by 15% of the home's current appraised value for borrowers who are 60 days late on their mortgage payments. The bill specifically excludes investors and those that lied about their income on the loan application. The bill also proposes an overhaul of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks as well as bringing the FHA into the 21st century. Stay tuned as the saga unfolds.