News for Mormons

From FoxBusiness.com:

Cartoon link

President Barack Obama is expected today to announce a plan with a price tag of anywhere from $50 billion to $100 billion aimed at rescuing homeowners at risk of foreclosure.

The intention seems honorable: help homeowners stay in their homes, while at the same time shoring up the assets of the banks that hold many of these loans in those now notoriously complex securities constructed around home mortgages.

By some dire estimates, 10 million American homeowners could face foreclosure in the next few years if the economy continues to slide. The pattern has already been established. More than 2.3 million mortgage holders entered the foreclosure process in 2008, a shocking 81% increase from the year before.

But, as is often the case with these economic relief programs, the solutions often raise as many questions as the problems themselves.

Indeed, housing experts are skeptical that any government program can slow the record pace of foreclosures.

“I would be shocked beyond words if, after they roll this out, I feel that the nation’s housing problems have been fixed,” said Debi Averett, who runs the Web site Housingdoom.com.

According to information leaked by government officials ahead of Obama’s announcement, key elements of the plan include lowering mortgage holders’ monthly payments so that they comprise about 31% of the homeowner’s monthly income.

Some homeowners at risk of default are reportedly paying out as much as 40% of their monthly income on their mortgages.

A family with an annual income of about $50,000 will usually pay about $19,000 toward their mortgage, according to government figures. Under Obama’s housing proposal, that figure would be reduced to $15,500, a savings of $3,500.

Banks would also be required to reduce the principles of some mortgages. The idea being that the loss absorbed by the write-down would be far less than if the mortgage was defaulted on altogether.

Obama also wants bankruptcy judges to be allowed to renegotiate mortgages, a concept housing and consumer lending advocates have preached since the dawn of the economic meltdown that followed the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble three years ago.

An early red flag for proponents of renegotiating mortgages is that many banks – and the government, as well – have already put in place such programs, and the results aren’t pretty.

Consider these figures from John C. Dugan, U.S. Controller of the Currency, for loans modified in the first quarter of 2008: after three months, nearly 36% of the borrowers had re-defaulted by being more than 30 days past due. After six months, the rate was nearly 53%, and after eight months, 58%.

The data is similar for mortgages modified in the second quarter of 2008. According to Dugan, the re-default rate after three months was 39%, and after six months, 51%.

Averett said the government is clearly trying to prop up the housing market by slowing the rate of foreclosures, an honorable gesture if it means keeping a roof over childrens’ heads.

But Averett maintains that the housing market will not stabilize until prices reach their own bottom, and buyers begin stepping in to buy up the huge surplus of homes now for sale.

“Ultimately it’s supply and demand. They can readjust all the loans they want, but there’s still too much supply. What they need to do is buy up all those houses and bulldoze them to get rid of the supply,” she joked.

And beyond simple economic laws, there is the moral question raised by using taxpayer dollars to help homeowners, many of whom simply bought houses they couldn’t afford.

“Why should the Amercian taxpayer pick up the bill for a situation like that?” Averett asked.

Gimmicky loans with low initial interest rates allowed untold numbers of borrowers to buy a $300,000 home when they should have bought a $200,000. After the teaser rate expired and the interest rate adjusted higher, many of those borrowers have found themselves unable to cover the mortgage.

It’s sad, but should taxpayers who stayed within their means be asked to cover the losses for borrowers who didn’t.

That’s just one question raised by the “solution” to the foreclosure problem. There are many others.

From The Houston Chronicle:

Glenn Beck, the former Houston radio disc jockey whose weekday TV and radio talk shows are moving to new outlets over the next two weeks, hasn’t lived in the state for almost two decades. He cringes anytime anyone brings up his stint on Houston drive-time radio in the late 1980s.

But Texas, and what he views as the traditional attitude of Texans, plays a significant role in the vision of apocalyptic gloom that he carries into his new show at 4 p.m. weekdays on Fox News.

Beck, who was a morning-drive host on KRBE (104.1 FM) from 1988 through 1990 before moving into national syndication, sees disaster and mayhem in the making because of what he views as the government’s incursions into personal freedoms and its recent moves to bolster the flagging economy.

“For the last four years, and for the last two years really seriously, I have seen trouble on the horizon,” he said. “And a lot of it stems from a trip I took to Texas two years ago that convinced me that if we don’t wake up, we’re going to lose our freedoms in this republic and everything we thought we were.”

Beck said he was in Dallas for less than a day during the eye-opening trip in question before he began picking up warning signs from practically everyone he met about the road ahead.

“People think Texans are arrogant and want to kick everyone’s butt, but Texans love America,” he said. “They don’t have a problem with other states, but they see Texas as a republic that happens to be better. It’s not ‘you suck,’ it’s ‘man, we’re great.’

“Texans are keepers of the republic flame on two fronts, Texas and the United States, and they instinctively know that our republic is in danger, that our government has real corruption, that they are stomping on our rights and destroying our monetary system in the name of saving it. It’s a dangerous game.”

While Beck espouses an affinity for what he views as the Texas mindset, he has unhappy memories of his stint in Houston at KRBE when it was known as Power 104. He worked morning drive at the station , doing the voiceover for a character he called “Clydie Clyde.”

“It was the worst time in my broadcasting career, and I wish people would stop bringing it up,” he said. “It’s the most embarrassing thing I ever did on radio. If I could make everybody forget about my time in Houston, it would be good.

“I was probably at my most arrogant. I thought I could do no wrong. It was tough to beat my arrogance and lack of intelligence and talent at the time. ‘I’m invincible. Look at me.’ It was garbage.”

Beck said he rebuilt his life through Alcoholics Anonymous, a remarriage and membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His career blossomed, too, when he launched a talk show in Tampa, Fla., in 2000. The show moved to national syndication in 2002, and he began his stint on Headline News in 2006.

Beck equates alcoholism with egomania and describes himself, as well as a recovering alcoholic, as a “recovering egomaniac,” which can be a tricky affliction for someone in such a personality-driven business as talk radio. Perhaps as an antidote for an out-of-control ego, he tends toward a gloomy take on the world and, he says, looks for people to tell him he’s wrong.

“I see my job as a war gamer,” he said. “Let’s play these stories out. Where does this end? How does this end? You have to have a decent respect for your ability to reason, but there’s a difference between saying I’m right and doing what I’m doing.

“It may not come off this way, but you’ve never met a host who wants to be wrong more than me. I pray, literally pray, each day, ‘Dear Lord, show me where I’m wrong.’”  (cont.)

Link to article

From The News-Leader (Springfield, MO):

Des Peres — As a Mormon planning a temple wedding, Jenna Gaal knew what she needed in a wedding gown: pure white, with sleeves and a conservative neckline and hem.

She just couldn’t find it.

“I tried on things that looked like nightgowns, floor-length with beads,” said the 23-year-old from Kansas City, who wanted something elegant as well as modest.

Finally, she found her dress about a four-hour drive from home at Chatfields Boutique in the St. Louis suburb of Des Peres. Chatfields, which bills itself as “an unexpected wedding store” features modest, plus-size, eco-friendly, maternity and other specialty gowns.

Its owner, Debbie Welcher, notes that not all brides are seeking a size 6 strapless couture gown. While those with unconventional — or very traditional — needs may have to do a little more homework, there are places where they, too, can find the dress of their dreams.

Gaal was beaming, and her mother looked happy too, as she stood in front of a mirror at Chatfields while her satin gown — with covered shoulders, a dropped waist and box pleats — was being fitted. She found the store because it is near her wedding temple.

“Oh my goodness! I was almost in tears because I had 10 to 20 dresses to try on, instead of two or three to try and work with,” she said. “I think it’s a great thing because every bride wants to look pretty on her wedding day.”

Welcher was motivated to create a boutique of hard-to-find bridal dresses when she heard a radio call-in discussion about how difficult it could be for pregnant brides to find flattering dresses and sympathetic salespeople.

Her store now serves a variety of niche bridal markets. There is a pregnant mannequin in the same store window as another mannequin wearing a temple-ready gown with high neck and long sleeves.

The maternity dress is a champagne taffeta with a corset back that can be laced to adjust for a changing figure. It also includes a panel of fabric that expands to accommodate an expanding belly.

“It’s not just an empire with fabric hanging down,” Welcher said, referring to the high-waistline style that might be used to dress a pregnant woman. “I love this dress because it’s so Audrey Hepburn.”

These days, brides want gowns that fit their own personal circumstances, say those in the industry.

“The whole concept of a traditional bride is being turned on its head a little bit,” said spokeswoman Cindi Freeburn of David’s Bridal, which has about 300 stores nationwide. “Brides really want to make their wedding their own.”

Freeburn noted that about 15 percent of American weddings are now “destination” weddings, for which brides might want gowns that can be worn outside.

Gown preferences also can vary by region, she said, and David’s adjusts its mix of dresses to meet demand — providing more covered-up gowns, for instance, in areas where there are larger concentrations of conservative, religious families.

The chain doesn’t specifically design maternity dresses, Freeburn said, but has in-store experts trained to make those alterations.  (cont.)

Link to article