Vox Day, friend and fellow (libertarian) rebel on WND.COM, has objected to my comments about his bank foreclosure comments in the BAB post titled “Financial Paperwork Crisis (No Conspiracy Thinking, Please).” Vox and I have been exchanging emails on the topic. Vox traces the arguments back-and-forth in his post “A dialogue with Ilana (UPDATED).”

Consider: You’re a homeowners. You have a mortgage with the bank. The title deed is yours; you have a legal right or title to the property. However, this obtains just as long as you honor your mortgage payments. The bank has a lien on the property until you pay-up the mortgage. If you pay your monthly mortgage installments, and the bank has cashed these payments, your bank account will reflect that. If you’ve met these conditions, and the bank, nevertheless, proceeds to foreclose on you—this is an error, and a legal and statistical anomaly; an outlier case.

It is my understanding that Vox refutes the above; says the latter scenario may be the norm, or could easily become the norm due to endemic fraud.

Distilled, I contend that it is almost always true that a necessary condition for a foreclosure is for the homeowner to have failed to make his mortgage payments. It is my understanding that Vox disputes this.

I told Vox that the one article he referred me to “began with a one-case study as its proof. This is statistically worse than insignificant. The article graduated to assertion. Then added another one-case study.” Vox may well be right, “but the data in the column he provided do not prove his case.

I have since Googled some of the terms Vox deploys in his post. One search led me to the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein. When Ezra does get something right it is only by accident. I any event, the Klein article does not support the Day case (as I understood it), namely that the foreclosed upon are being treated unjustly, even routinely robbed of their property.

Understand: I have no dog in the fracas other than the truth; am quite ready to find for Vox. So far, the hard evidence is missing.

Our debate might be delayed for a while, but it will continue. Stay tuned.

UPDATED I (Oct. 18): Difster’s comment hereunder is mostly waffle unless he is able to address what I wrote in the post: has the homeowner being foreclosed upon been paying his debt or not. He can’t. I really can’t abide argument that doesn’t cleave to reality and evidence. Bring me evidence of all the cases of paid-up homeowners who’ve been foreclosed upon. Present that here, please.

UPDATE II: Judging from this tale of woe, the lawyers for the defaulting borrower are themselves using what they consider irregularities of procedure to try and get their delinquent client’s debt forgiven. I am not saying that “MERS, the electronic mortgage tracking system,” and the banks that use it, are following the letter of the law, but what people seem to be skirting here, much to my horror, is that these borrowers owe money they borrowed. You don’t forgive someone’s debt because the debt-holder’s bureaucracy is bad, or even dubious. And you don’t accuse bankers as a group of robbing home owners of title to their homes, because of problems of paper trail. (As I pointed out here, to argue against the bankers, in this case, on the ground that they are, moreover, embroiled in the fractional reserve system is to make an error of logic, maybe even a categorical error. Along the lines of releasing murderers because justice system is corrupt, etc.)

Note too that nowhere do the delinquent borrowers deny that they have not paid their debts, only that they are struggling “to figure out who owns their loans, who can negotiate loan modifications with them, or even how to get a call returned.”

Also: Borrowers are deploying the very argument the bankers are using: it’s the bureaucracy.

What do you know, it seems that, as outlined in this BAB post, “the latest foreclosure crisis is indeed bureaucratic in nature.”

UPDATE III: The thing to take away from Vox’s WND column today is this line: “the law is very clear on the matter: ‘If the chain of title is broken, then the borrower’s loan is no longer secured by the property.’”

This is the positive law. The fact of the borrower’s debt is unchanged. A took from B in order to buy C. That’s another “chain” to keep in mind.

Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada and Chile have leapfrogged over the United States on the Fraser Institute’s index of economic freedom.

“In this year’s index, Hong Kong retains the highest rating for economic freedom, 9.05 out of 10. The other top 10 nations are: Singapore (8.70), New Zealand (8.27), Switzerland (8.08), Chile (8.03), United
States (7.96), Canada (7.95), Australia (7.90), Mauritius (7.82), and the United Kingdom (7.81).”

Forty-two data points are used to construct a summary index and to measure the degree of economic freedom in five broad areas:
1 Size of Government: Expenditures, Taxes, and Enterprises;
2 Legal Structure and Security of Property Rights;
3 Access to Sound Money;
4 Freedom to Trade Internationally;
5 Regulation of Credit, Labor, and Business.

With some variation, The Heritage/WSJ’s economically freest countries are these:

1- Hong Kong
2- Singapore
3- Australia
4- New Zealand
5- Ireland
6- Switzerland
7- Canada
8- United States
9- Denmark
10- Chile

Lest you forget, these indices provide important but woefully incomplete data. Long ago, Pierre Lemieux, a libertarian Canadian economist (a friend too) explained:

“If ‘economic freedom’ is inseparable from the rest of human liberty in a social context (using one’s property to express dissenting opinions, travel, have sex, grow marijuana, store one’s firearms, raise funds from “public” investors, etc.), the freedom indexes are off the mark.

“This explains why some countries ruled by hard tyrannies (as opposed to the soft, Tocquevillian brand we know in the West), where nobody in his right mind would want live except to make a buck as a privileged foreigner or a member the local nomenklatura, make it to the top of the list. Who would want to live in Hong Kong (ranked 1st of 151 countries in the HF/WSJ index), that is, under one of the worst tyrannies on earth, and so much so for its very efficiency? Who would want to be a peasant under other Asian tyrannies like Singapore (ranked 2nd)?”

“The selective definition of economic freedom also explains why the indexes show growing economic freedom while everybody who lives in the real world must know that the 20th century, rightly described by Mussolini as ‘the century of the state,’ is continuing in the 21st with a vengeance. During the 12 years of the HF/WSJ index, economic freedom is supposed to have increased. For example, over that period, both the U.S. (now ranked 9th) and Canada (ranked 12th) have improved their scores by 11%, while in both countries (and others) the Surveillance State was growing uncontrollably, including on financial markets. In the U.S., so many business executives are going to jail that perhaps repression will have to be outsourced to China.”

“Thus, the ‘economic freedom’ that is being measured is a rather special animal: it is the freedom to do what is narrowly defined as freedom in the statistics underlying the index. In practice, the freedom indexes encompass some general conditions for economic freedom (like a stable currency, or narrowly defined ‘property rights’), specific government restrictions or controls (on foreign investment, for example), and consequences of state intervention (the informal economy or corruption). And, of course, the weights assigned to the components of the indexes are arbitrary.”

“I am not saying that such indexes are totally useless. They do regroup variables that are correlated with GDP per capita and its growth, but keep in mind that GDP is a very unreliable construct that reveals basically nothing about the general welfare, and is based on arbitrary value judgments (this is pretty standard welfare economics: see my upcoming article in The Independent Review). The indexes may correlate with the difficulties the businessman will have with local bureaucracies. They may even indicate opportunities for investors to make money in limited contexts, assuming the information has not already been incorporated in prices. The HF/WSJ publication even contains some useful country summaries and international statistics.”

“But the freedom indexes have little to do with ‘economic freedom’ as we use the term in politics, economics and philosophy.”

UPDATE (Oct. 17): Interestingly, John Stossel has addressed Myron’s question:

“This evening on Eric Bolling’s show, Follow the Money, when I argued that economic freedom brings prosperity, lefty lawyer Ron Kuby said I was ‘full of it’ because the freest countries are not at the top of a list of the world’s richest countries:

1- Monaco
2- Liechtenstein
3- Norway
4- Luxembourg
5- Channel Islands
6- Qatar
7- Bermuda

But this is deceptive nonsense, like so much of what lefty lawyers say. It’s no surprise that small oil-rich nations, tax havens, and countries with old wealth have the highest per capita income. But the freest counties are all near the top of the list. Here’s Heritage’s list of the least economically free countries:

172- Democratic Republic of Congo
173- Libya
174- Venezuela
175- Burma
176- Eritrea
177- Cuba
178- Zimbabwe
179- North Korea

Do you want to live in any of those counties? I sure don’t.”

He’s trillions of dollars and a decade too late, but Kevin D. Williamson of National Review can assure himself he’s “contrarian” for advocating an about face in the Federal Reserve Bank’s fiddling.

Williamson may be reading Austrian economics. By that I mean the reality based thinking of Ludwig von Mises (taught at the Mises Institute); preached by Ron Paul (whom the neoconery mocked during the Bush years), practiced by financier Peter Schiff, written about by Tom Woods in Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse; as well as by Vox Day, and in this writer’s columns and blogs over the past decade.

Being of the establishment, however, Williamson can just put his hands over his ears and tell himself over and over again “I’m contrarian,” and this will be so.

“So here’s a contrarian take,” Williamson assures himself: “The Fed should stop trying to drive down interest rates. It should instead work to raise them. Why? Our economy needs savings and investment. …”

As I said, trillions of dollars and a decades too later … (“PUNDITS, HEAL THYSELVES!”)

Your host, writing in “Those Invisible Jobs,” did not anoint herself a “contrarian” for advocating that Fed supremo Ben Bernanke raise interest rates.” Not then, and not in 2000 (“The Central Bank’s Game is the Same, Whoever’s the Name”), and on all those occasions in-between.

Why? Because in the Austrian community, represented by some very prominent people, this is common wisdom.

Bloody annoying…

UPDATE I: I’ll be honest: it is hard to know from Mr. Williamson’s articles exactly where he stands on matters of political philosophy (or if he is a neoconservative or not). However, my post’s point was pretty clear. It expressed annoyance that someone can call himself contrarian for proposing less quantitative easing. Granted, it’s a prickly post, but Mr. Williamson can understand, surely, why writers like myself get a tad testy? We’ve been marginalized for being right on foreign policy and fiscal matters our entire careers, such as they are. Then, when the rest catch up with us, a decade down the line, they pretend that truth began with them.

If I’ve learned anything about the American Mind it is this: Truth doesn’t exist until someone in the establishment pronounces it, usually a decade or so after it has been in circulation. I guess, better late than never, but why not acknowledge those who went before?

I saw Mr. Williamson go up against one or the other left-liberals on TV, and I remember thinking: much better than Rich. Still, I do not believe there is a sufficient amount of information to conclude that “better than Rich” is a meaningful statement.

Mr. Williamson is young (and presentable). He has plenty of time to correct any mistaken impressions I might have formed, not least of which is his sharing that horrible habit common among the Republican establishment of never admitting to being Johnny-come-latelies on Iraq, Bush, economy, QE, etc.

UPDATE II: Mr. Glisson, first, why don’t you provide hyperlinks and particular quotes in substantiation of your position that Mr. Williamson is never a neoconservative? Second, why misconstrue the point of this writer’s post, encapsulated again in the last two sentences of “UPDATE I”? Moreover, from a parenthetic statement about the neoconservatives’ attitude toward Ron Paul, Mr. Williamson concluded that I had called him a neoconservative. You do the same, for some reason.

Again, Mr. Williamson is better than Rich; way better. I am still unsure as to what kind of badge of honor this really is; or if Mr. Williamson is or is not a neoconservative. Isn’t that a condition of employment at National Review? John Derbyshire is NRO’s only paleo-conservative (sort of). I’d love to see John thrust into the spotlight, but they keep him in the basement, so to speak.

UPDATE III (Oct. 17): We thank Kevin D. Williamson for responding to the intrigue he has generated on Barely A Blog. He remains a man of mystery, and that is not half bad. In the age of too much information (and letting it all hang loose), mystery is a good thing. We agree that Mr. Williamson ain’t Rich. Has Rich employed a non-neoconservative in the hope of generating some oscillation in the static National Review? Or because the readership has little patience with that old guard? Who knows? We also understand that a man has to make a living. To do so, he must often walk an ideological tightrope.

Nevertheless, those who went before—and remain permanently frozen out of mainstream—deserve mention. It gets terribly cold out here. Mr. Glisson seems to think I’m some kind of intellectual missionary, spreading the good word, pleased to turn the other cheek just so long as the new guard can adopt the gospel, even if they falsely pretend to be pioneers.

Rubbish. Nonsense on stilts. I’m all about justice. Intellectual justice included.

The following is from “A Vote For Chile’s President,” my latest WND column:

“President Barack Obama took to the podium well before President Sebastian Piñera did. Chile’s president bided his time patiently with the group of rescue workers in hard hats, until all 33 miners had surfaced from deep within the San José copper-gold mine, in northern Chile, where they had been entombed for 69 days.

If not for the translator’s running commentary, I would not have guessed that the man with a beaming smile—so different from Obama’s gleam of dentition and Bush’s demented grin—last in-line to meet and greet the miners who ascended from hell, was no other than Chile’s president. Sebastian Piñera wife, first lady Cecilia Morel, was equally low-key, fading into the background and ceding to the heroes of the unfolding drama.

The images transmitted from Camp Esperanz showed no swat teams, personal body guards, or retinues of handlers and props—the sort of ‘presidential comitatus’ that accompanies the head of the American hyperpower everywhere.

At ‘Camp Hope,’ the pensive group of rescuers and their president looked like a band of brothers. The media scrum did nothing to shatter what was almost a religious atmosphere. All present—mining men, the rescued and the rescuers, and their families—seemed oblivious to the din from the outside world. Nobody appeared star-struck; few were playing to the cameras. All present had eyes for one another alone. Expressions of joy were all the more poignant because so dignified. There was no slobbering, no Geraldo-Rivera hyperbole.” …

The compete column, now on WND.COM, is “A Vote For Chile’s President.”

Next week I hope to introduce you to the work of a dear friend, Professor Dennis O’Keeffe, who has just written a gem of a book about Edmund Burke. My conversation with Dennis will be the first of a two-part interview. You’ll enjoy it.

And do read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

UPDATE (Oct. 16): Star Parker in “What Chile can teach America about freedom”:

But back just a little less than 40 years ago, Chile was a typical, poor South American nation, with intrusive government and sluggish growth.
How was it transformed?
Read a short essay called “How the Power of Ideas Can Transform a Country,” by one of the leaders that made it happen – Jose Pinera.
He relates how, in the mid-1950s, the Catholic University of Chile signed a cooperation agreement with the Department of Economics of the University of Chicago, then home to the world’s top free-market economists, including the legendary Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman’s classic “Capitalism and Freedom” explains how individual liberty can only thrive when accompanied by economic liberty
Thus began the education of a generation of young Chileans in the wisdom of economic freedom.
Beginning in the late 1970s, these young leaders, with newly minted Ph.D.s, helped implement new economic reforms in Chile protecting private property and promoting free trade.
A graph showing annual economic growth in Chile over the last hundred years looks like a hockey stick. From the early part of the twentieth century until 1980, the line is flat, averaging less than 1 percent growth per year. But beginning 1980, growth takes off in a vertical surge, averaging over 4 percent per year.

I’m not talking about “The Queen Elizabeth 2″ cruise ship, but of “‘Quantitative Easing,’ which is state-speak for the government’s monkeying with the money supply.” That ship has indeed sailed a long time ago. At the end of September, we reported here on a $1 trillion Fed infusion of paper into our hot-air balloon of an economy.

How many pinpricks away from runaway hyperinflation are we?

Now you know why a stock market rally does not a recovery predict. In fact, stocks will be buoyed after a funny-money injection. “But as usual,” concedes Larry Kudlow, ignored are “the plunging dollar and soaring commodity prices, which will lead to an inflation tax on consumers and businesses, something that is not good for profits or economic growth.”

The judicial, legislative, and executive are in an unholy alliance that has long since sundered the 10th Amendment, namely constitutional individual and states’ rights. As we wait on the tyrannical federal trinity to issue decrees in response to the challenge to Obamacare launched by “20 different lawsuits with 21 different states as plaintiffs,” TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST A. BARTON HINKLE provides valuable background analysis.

How Will the Court Rule in Mandate Case?
By A. BARTON HINKLE

Predicting how the Supreme Court will rule in a given case is often a sketchy business. The court doesn’t break down neatly along liberal/conservative, or big-government/small-government, lines. For every Heller or Citizens United infuriating the left, there’s a Kelo or Raich to send steam billowing out of conservatives’ ears.

So there’s no telling how the Supremes might come down on the question of whether Obamacare’s individual mandate is constitutional. Now that a federal judge has refused to dismiss Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s suit against it, proponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will have to argue the case on the merits.
That might not be as easy as some have assumed. This becomes clear from an amicus brief submitted by Ilya Somin — a law professor at George Mason — along with the Washington Legal Foundation and assorted other law profs from around the country.

Somin notes that, as Madison said, the Constitution does not grant Congress “an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things.” Rather, it lists a finite set of federal powers — and forcing people to buy consumer goods is not one of them.

True, the federal government does many other things the Constitution does not explicitly mention, and the power to do them is taken to be implied. So proponents of the individual mandate hang their hat on a couple of different hooks.

One is the Commerce Clause, granting a congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has broken down the Commerce Clause into three parts: regulating the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and the “activities” that “substantially affect” interstate commerce. But, Somin writes, “an individual’s mere status as uninsured is neither an instrumentality of interstate commerce, such as a road or airport, nor . . . is being uninsured a person or thing that travels in interstate commerce.” And it is absurd to claim that inactivity constitutes activity.

To see why, Somin goes back to the decision in Gonzales v. Raich, in which the court ruled that growing marijuana for personal medical use — an activity that is neither commerce nor interstate — could be forbidden under the Interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had broad authority under the clause to regulate even “noneconomic activity.”

But unlike growing marijuana, not purchasing health insurance is not even an activity, and it is fatuous to pretend otherwise. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate transactions between Jim and Bob. It doesn’t give Congress the power to force Fred, who had been resting under a tree, to join Jim and Bob’s exchange.

If Congress has the power to do that, Somin writes, then “the federal government would have the power to force citizens to engage in any activity that might conceivably affect commerce is some way.” Big-government liberals might be perfectly fine with that. But, Somin says, “this is precisely the kind of unconstrained power that the court has expressly rejected.”

At this point, Obamacare advocates usually interrupt with the emergency-room argument. It goes like this: “Well, people who don’t have insurance end up needing medical care, and hospitals are required by law to treat them, and that imposes costs on everybody else. What are you going to do — let hospitals throw patients into the street?”

This is a fine rhetorical device and an interesting ethical question, despite some factual weaknesses (not everybody requires medical care they can’t pay for out of pocket; millions of healthy young adults don’t need insurance). But it is not a constitutional argument. A hospital’s legal obligations don’t confer powers on Congress. Banks have lending obligations. That doesn’t mean Congress can force you to open a checking account.

On Thursday, a federal judge in Michigan tested another argument: The failure to buy insurance qualifies activity because “by choosing to forgo insurance plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later.” The same reasoning, however, would deny conscientious objectors the right to avoid military service, because by choosing to forgo participation in a war, they are forcing someone else to go in their place.

The amicus brief makes quick work of the notion that the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. It’s not an income tax, it’s not an excise tax, so it must be a direct tax — which must be apportioned among the states — or, as seems patently obvious, it’s a penalty. But Congress can’t impose a penalty to enforce regulation of something it has no authority to regulate in the first place.
Finally, the mandate’s proponents say it’s authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause, because it’s necessary to impose the requirement that insurance companies accept all comers regardless of pre-existing conditions. (Why? Because without the mandate, people wouldn’t buy insurance until they got sick.) This might be the strongest argument for the mandate. But it still faces a couple of problems.

First, the individual mandate tries to achieve something by taking an extremely broad step when a more narrowly tailored one would suffice. As Paul Starr wrote in the liberal American Prospect last year, Congress could address the adverse-selection problem by giving individuals “a right to opt out of the mandate if they signed a form agreeing that they could not opt in for the following five years . . . .For five years they would become ineligible for federal subsidies for health insurance and, if they did buy coverage, no insurer would have to cover a pre-existing condition of theirs.” Strictly speaking, the mandate is not necessary.

Second, if the court concludes that the mandate is justified because it is, after all, “rationally related” to insurancee regulation, then the justices would open the door (as they did in Kelo) to governmental sophistry: As long as legislators claim a new power being sought has some tenuous connection to an existing power, then the courts can never say no. This would allow lawmakers to assume an indefinite supremacy over persons and things, by stacking new powers one atop the other.

Liberals are in love with granting Washington indefinite supremacy right now, with a Democratic Congress and president at the helm. They might not like it so much should a Republican Congress start working hand-in-glove with a President Sarah Palin.

UPDATE: Good news. A “Federal Judge Allows Multi-State Suit Against Health Care Law to Proceed.”

Yes, she had been reforming the educational gulag that is the D.C. public school system, instead of abolishing it (abolition should include educational vouchers and charter schools, a species of the publicly funded system). But I can’t judge Michelle Rhee by this libertarian’s ideal. Rhee, chancellor of perhaps the costliest and crappiest urban school system in the developed world, has been forced to step down because she set about purging the deadwood and detritus, and the structures that nourish them (tenure as opposed talent, for instance), from the DC educational enterprise.

WaPo: “Student test scores rose, decades of enrollment decline stopped and the teachers union accepted a contract that gave the chancellor, in tandem with a rigorous new evaluation system, sweeping new powers to fire low-performing educators.”

Pursuant to her purging, Rhee has been forced, presumably, to parrot publicly that, “We have agreed that the best way to keep the reforms going is for this reformer to step aside.”

That makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?

The powers that be have been reinstated in the person of Kaya Henderson.

SHE’S IN:

RHEE’S OUT:

Is this a case of out-with-the-Asian-outsider and in-with-the-African home girl? As with everything else in the US, the racial overtones are palpable.

“How D.C. Became Hollywood for Semi-Attractive People” is the title of an Esquire blog post by Tom Junod. It is not particularly well-written, or especially thoughtful—this guy is not Christopher Hitchens—but the post got its author on cable today. “Hardball” I think it was. Here is what Junod thinks of you yobbos and your politics:

“The Democrats didn’t think they had to worry about any of this. They weren’t looking for stars because they had the biggest star in the world as their president. He didn’t have a populist bone in his body, but he was a deeply thoughtful man and a galvanic speaker both, and he promised to transcend the bone-grind of American politics. With his promise of one-man racial reconciliation, he was transfixing, but the independents who were transfixed by him needed to keep being transfixed, and on this, he couldn’t deliver. The American public turned against Obama not when it found out he was radical, or wish-washy, or power-mad, or timid, or what have you; it turned against him when he stopped being entertaining. It turned against him when it found out his real secret — that under his professorial mien he was, well, a professor. Outside the enforced electricity of a national electoral referendum, he was dutiful, and he was dull.”

“It is something of an unfair fight now: a party led by a man who clearly thinks too much before he speaks against a party led by a semi-sexy woman who will say anything — hell, whose idea of a debating strategy in 2008 was a table dance. And the Democrats don’t have an answer, because they’ve so deeply misjudged what the American electorate wants and is capable of. They thought that after the trauma of the Bush years, we would want a no-drama president; a regal First Lady; endless pages of necessary legislation, achieved at a political cost that proves the party’s commitment and courage; and a few more women on the Supreme Court who prove the party’s emphasis on excellence and ethnicity over eros. They didn’t realize that what we want is drama and nothing but, and so the Democrats became the CNN to the Repubican [sic] Fox, clueless in their competence, bewildered by their own best intentions.”

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/female-candidates-2010#ixzz12Do5TbPi

Can you get worked up about the latest fight between the Democratic and Republican bloodhounds and their hangers-on?

“Honing a campaign message,” the WSJ reports, “President Barack Obama and Democratic Party officials have in recent days strongly suggested the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other groups, including two run by Republican strategist Karl Rove, are illegally using money from foreign nationals or companies to fund U.S. political advertising. The groups have repeatedly denied the charges.”

And if not for this small matter, the elections—this “advance auction sale of stolen goods,” in H. L. Mencken’s words—would be just dandy.

As I read the facts, the latest foreclosure crisis is bureaucratic in nature, not economic. Described by The Wall Street Journal, “the wrong guy at the bank signed the foreclosure paperwork. … The affidavit was supposed to be signed by the nameless, faceless employee in the back office who reviewed the file, not the other nameless, faceless employee who sits in the front.”

The reality has not changed. We’re still talking about the same “consumer who borrow[ed] money to buy a house, [didn't] make the mortgage payments, and then [lost] the house in foreclosure.”

Except that now 100,000 people get to keep homes for which they haven’t paid. Because bureaucracy runs the economy, the process of cleansing the housing market of these toxic acquisitions will be halted and gummed up even more so than before.

A major culprit is “GMAC Mortgage, whose parent Ally Financial is majority-owned by the U.S. government.”

Well, of course.

Every parasitical official seeking to renew or secure his sinecure on the public teat is demanding a halt to what looks to have been perfectly legitimate foreclosures on delinquent homeowners: state attorneys general, the Attorney General (Eric Holder), and assorted politicians, all interfering in local state affairs.

As the WSJ notes (rather meekly), “freezing activity in a $2.8 trillion financial market is the last thing this economy needs and is in no way proportional to the problems reported so far.”

The WSJ concludes on a stronger note:

“If evidence emerges of policies or actions that wrongly threw people out of their homes, by all means investigate and prosecute violations of law. But allowing people to live in homes without paying for them is not cost-free. That cost will be borne directly by investors in mortgage-backed securities and mortgage servicing companies, and ultimately by American taxpayers, who now stand behind 90% of new mortgages, thanks to guarantees by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

The bigger damage here is to the housing market, which desperately needs to find a bottom by clearing excess inventory and working through foreclosures as rapidly as possible. The moratoriums further politicize the housing market and further delay a housing recovery. In an economy and a financial system engulfed in Washington-created uncertainty, the political class has decided to create still more.”

Justice in the food-stamps nation …

UPDATE I (Oct. 11): It is clear that the above constitute “technicalities, not miscarriages of justice.” In “A Foreclosure Tightrope for Democrats,” the NYT suggests that the “White House shares those concerns, and it has tried to defuse the issue by arguing that problems can be addressed without imposing a moratorium.”

“‘There are, in fact, valid foreclosures that probably should go forward,’ David Axelrod, a senior White House adviser, said Sunday on CBS.”

The industry has argued in response that problems should be addressed without halting all foreclosures, because a moratorium would damage the economy. “It must be recognized that the mortgage market, investors and the health of the economy are all interrelated,” Tim Ryan, president of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said Monday.

Is the prospect of an election forcing some economic enlightenment at the White House?

UPDATE II (Oct. 12): It must be obvious to readers of this site that I would strongly disagree with the case my colleague Vox Day makes against the strict rule of law and for grand-conspiracy:

The idea that the foreclosure fraud is simply a little clerical error and that homeowners are attempting to capitalize on a minor issue of missing paperwork is a blatant and shameless lie. The mere fact of their focus on the borrowing parties rather than the banks is proof that they are intentionally evading the real issue. Karl Denninger, who has been on this for three years now, explains it more succinctly than anyone. “The issue is not about which paper-pusher signed documents. The issue is whether the origination and securitization of this paper in the first instance was fraudulent, and whether we now we have a Watergate-style coverup of what a gang of brigands did to steal literal trillions of dollars!” As he further elucidates, there are three primary parts to the problem; notice that the latter two have absolutely nothing to do with the borrowers that the Republican Cantor declares must “take responsibility for themselves”. But if a poor Hispanic family living in an overpriced house have to take responsibility for themselves, why don’t the bankers who are holding Cantor’s leash have to do likewise?

Similar opinions were expressed on BAB when we discussed “Strategic Defaulters.” There, John Danforth wrote:

What caused the drop in nominal property value? The inevitable collapse of prices that were superheated by banks puffing up fractional reserves with derivatives of the superheated asset prices. …No matter how debased the morality of the strategic defaulters, the banks are not any better.

Distilled, the argument for all-out sweetness and love for the foreclosed upon is that, because the banks are embroiled in the fractional reserve system, they should suffer the worst of fates.

That’s like saying that because the legal system is generally corrupt, murderers should go free; or because an owner who sells a parcel of land partakes in the property tax theft, the buyer should not have to pay him. Or because businesses often act like exuberant idiots during a phase of the business cycle—some as offenders; others as victims—their customers need not pay them. And on and on.

This is chaos theory; create chaos, and out of it, something good may come. And never mind that not all bankers are crooks; that not all of them understand the theoretical aspects of the system in which they are embroiled; and that not nearly enough bad things are said about the defaulters.

As to Vox’s point, it does not follow from “the mere fact of their focus on the borrowing parties rather than the banks,” that this “is proof that they are intentionally evading the real issue.”

Not in logic, at least.

Finally, the laws of economics are natural laws. Whoever is involved, it is categorically good that responsible buyers get to pick up foreclosed properties, and that the mortgage miasma is cleared and cleansed away.