Star Tribune: unbalanced analysis of Norm Coleman's foreclosure bill

[Updated: see below]

The Minneapolis Star Tribune must not have enough reporters left to provide any analysis of Sen. Norm Coleman's (R-MN) proposal to help bail the banks out of their foreclosure problems. They repeat or paraphrase from Norm's press release then quote some people who think corporate welfare is one of the government's primary duties. Must we bloggers do everything?

To recap ... Norm's bill will allow homeowners who are 60 days overdue on the mortgage to withdraw up to $100,000 penalty free from their retirement plans, i.e., 401Ks and etc, without any taxes or penalties. Homeowners would have to pay this money back within 3 years or would have a tax lien for whatever penalties and interest they would have otherwise paid placed on their home. The most critical line the Strib published was:

Beth Ann Bovino, an economist with Standard and Poor's in New York, said that the bill could make sense as the "lesser of two evils," referring to the hit it would take on retirement savings.
(Star Tribune)

Ooohh ... it must be getting close to Halloween. So scary ... okay. I'm over being scared now. Two evils? Here's the other one. The bank's that either bought the excessively risky loans from some other lender or the one's that made them, get to eat their losses. The government passes some sort of pro-consumer legislation to help homeowners out. Crisis solved.

The real issue is that many lenders participated in risky lending practices to people without the means to repay the loans using a wide variety of questionable mechanisms. Now Norm wants to help give these lender's these people's last remaining assets.

How kind of Norm. His donor's from the corporate banking sector will be very pleased.

This quote from the Associated Press is a be-oot:

"Most delinquencies are caused by an event in someone's life that puts them temporarily behind on their bills, including their monthly mortgage payment," said the group's president and CEO, Jonathan L. Kempner. "Senator Coleman's bill will allow borrowers who have fallen behind to help themselves without being penalized by the government."
[emphasis mine]
(Star Tribune)

I'm going to rephrase that last sentence out of corporate-speak into plain American. He said:

Norm's bill will allow y'all who ain't paying us our money back to give us whatever else y'all's got left. Hey! We'll take yer 401K ... it's better n nuthin.

Yes, that's right. Y'all's is the possessive form of y'all. Let's get one thing straight. Banks will always make money. Even after this foreclosure crisis gets solved. I just hope it's not solved on the back's of homeowners.

I'd cross-posted to Daily Kos. A commenter, anothergreenbus, had this to say:

As a Minnesota native, I have followed with great interest the shift in ownership of the Star Tribune—previously owned by Gannet and then McClatchy. The recent buyout by Avista, a recently formed company, happened just two months after the last election. The new owners are primarily oil-men (Basic Energy Services in Midland Texas being one), bankers and healthcare businessmen (pharmaceuticals). Isn’t it strange for oil-men, etc. to take on an entirely new business by purchasing the Star Tribune as their first investment?

Why would the Star Tribune be of value to oilmen and healthcare corporations? Look at the swing states, the location of the 2008 repub convention and look at the history of the Star Tribune coverage. It’s easy to see why it is worth controlling. Check out the company on Forbes or Business Weekly and don’t be distracted by the front man, a supposed Democrat, who worked for Knight-Ridder and was, by pure chance, a classmate of GWB’s at Andover. Most importantly consider the owners, their recent businesses and their other special interests.
(anothergreenbus)