Obama and Clinton Speak About Housing and the Economy: A Compare and Contrast

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


This past week, all three presidential candidates gave major speeches on housing and the economy. Hillary Clinton highlighted her extensive work on the subprime housing crisis and Barack Obama emphasized a modernization of the institutions that regulate the financial industry for the federal government. John McCain, in a widely panned speech, offered no new proposals on either subject. In late January, McCain told reporters, “Even if the economy is the, quote, No. 1 issue, the real issue will remain America’s security… I am running because of the transcendental challenge of the 21st century, which is radical Islamic extremism.”

Clinton and Obama’s speeches, though they had slightly different focuses, underscore the difference between the Democrats and the sole Republican in terms of economic aptitude.

Both Clinton and Obama said that trouble on Wall Street eventually hurts Main Street, and vice versa. Both offered sympathy to families going through foreclosures and tough love for bankers and financial types who rode mortgage-backed securities to ruin. Obama was willing to say plainly “our economy is in a recession,” while Clinton went only so far as to say “our economy is in serious trouble.”

Clinton claimed that she’s been on the subprime hunt for a while now, and she’s right. In March 2007, she told the National Community Reinvestment Coalition that she wanted to expand and reinvigorate the Federal Housing Authority, so it could offer “more mortgages at better rates.” She also called for “more counseling and information” for potential homeowners, so they could avoid high-interest loans. Shortly thereafter she introduced the 21st Century Housing Act, a bill which, if it were to become law, would use these proposals and others to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

In October 2007, she followed up by proposing criminal penalties for foreclosure consultants and lenders who take advantage of naïve homebuyers. She suggested making a $100 million fund available to the states so they can more effectively prosecute foreclosure fraud and assist homeowners who have been duped.

Clinton’s speech this week went even further than her past proposals. She called for “meaningful broker licensing standards” to screen mortgage brokers and govern their conduct. She also called for all brokers to register with the federal government. She reiterated her support for a 90-day moratorium on all subprime foreclosures and a voluntary five-year freeze on interest rates for subprime mortgages.

In a move that elicited smirks across the Internet, Clinton also suggested an “emergency working group on foreclosures” that would be led by Alan Greenspan, the former Fed Chair who neglected the growing housing crisis for years, and Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary who is currently the Director and Chairman of the Executive Committee of Citi.

Finally, Clinton announced a $30 billion stimulus package that would “go directly to cities and states to address the housing crisis.” It would allow cities to purchase foreclosed or “distressed” properties, which they could then convert into affordable housing units.

Senator Obama could point to a less extensive history of action on the housing crisis, but paired his proposals on that subject with ideas for modernizing the regulation of America’s financial industry, a topic Clinton ignored this week and has touched on only briefly in the past. Both Obama and Clinton are somewhat compromised on the issue: They have both received millions from securities and investment firms, and Clinton friend Rubin was a key deregulation advocate in the ’90s.

Speaking on Thursday, Obama said that because of “new and complex financial instruments like hedge funds and non-bank financial companies” we need to create “a 21st century regulatory framework.” Regulatory reform should rest on several core principles, Obama suggested. The first being that because banks borrow from the government, they ought to be subject to government oversight. “The Federal Reserve should have basic supervisory authority over any institution to which it may make credit available as a lender of last resort. When the Fed steps in, it is providing lenders an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer. In return, taxpayers have every right to expect that these institutions are not taking excessive risks.”

But Obama was quick to assure his audience at Cooper Union that he wasn’t suggesting a new and burdensome bureaucracy. “Reshuffling bureaucracies should not be an end in itself,” said Obama. “A streamlined system will provide better oversight, and be less costly for regulated institutions.” The priority is to make the federal government’s oversight apparatus more modern, and fit to keep pace with the financial industry’s constant innovation and evolution.

Clinton’s record on regulation is somewhat impoverished. In November, she acknowledged that innovations in the financial industry present “new threats.” In December, she called for “an industry-wide commitment to tightening underwriting standards and disclosure obligations.” But she has not previously discussed renovating or modernizing America’s regulatory capacity at any length, and did not do so on Monday.

Obama also provided suggestions for dealing with the housing crisis. He mentioned the FHA Housing Security Program, which he introduced into the Senate with Chris Dodd earlier this month. If passed, the Dodd-Obama legislation will provide incentives for lenders to convert adjustable rate mortgages that are currently problematic into stable 30-year fixed mortgages. Obama also proposed a $10 billion fund that would help struggling homeowners sell their homes or modify their loans. He suggested tougher penalties for fraudulent lenders, and a “Home Score system” that would allow potential homeowners to learn more about mortgage offers. These ideas mirror those Clinton has unveiled previously.

Obama reiterated his support for middle class tax cuts and the elimination of all incomes taxes for retirees making less than $50,000 a year. He also suggested a $30 billion stimulus package targeted at communities hardest hit by the housing crisis. It parallels very closely the stimulus package put forward by Clinton on Monday.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate