Obama To Veto Notarization Recognition Bill

The White House blog:

Today, the White House announced that President Obama will not sign H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010, and will return the bill to the House of Representatives. The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010 was designed to remove impediments to interstate commerce. While we share this goal, we believe it is necessary to have further deliberations about the intended and unintended impact of this bill on consumer protections, including those for mortgages, before this bill can be finalized.

Notarizations are important for a large range of documents, including financial documents. As the President has made clear, consumer financial protections are incredibly important, and he has made this one of his top priorities, including signing into law the strongest consumer protections in history in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. That is why we need to think through the intended and unintended consequences of this bill on consumer protections, especially in light of the recent developments with mortgage processors.

The authors of this bill no doubt had the best intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce. We will work with them and other leaders in Congress to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward.

< White House Considering Veto Of Notarization Recognition Bill | Thursday Night Open Thread: TV and Taxes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That's the way to handle it (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    Praise their good intentions (though they may, in truth, be nonexistent), then veto it and tell them to go back and try again.

    It's good cover if you're worried (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    that someone's going to out you as being in the loop and fully aware of this bill all along...and I'm sure the anonymous sources will be flapping their gums any minute now if they can figure out a way not to tar themselves with the same brush they will use to tar the Dems and Obama - of being totally in the banks' pockets on this.

    Blood in the water? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    I do want to get to the bottom of this.

    I need names (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    other than just Casey, Leahy, and Sessions.....(Pfft - Sessions, what am I going to do with that one?)  Vermont should kick Leahy's a$$ in a way he will never forget.  The thunder should rain down and he should be running for cover and cying.  What is he angling for?  To be the next Dodd?

    Link to info on bill (govtracker) (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:43:35 PM EST
    H.R. 3808: Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009 ...


    Rep. Robert Aderholt [R-AL4]
    Bruce Braley [D-IA1]
    Michael Castle [R-DE]
    Artur Davis [D-AL7]


    Seems like my link doesn't work (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 09:48:51 PM EST
    Poltergeist must have got to it. Here is a new link

    Tested it out and it should work.


    It started in the house, (none / 0) (#43)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 02:20:25 PM EST
    an Alabama issue... Aderholt, IIRC, with Artur Davis as a co-sponsor, I think. If I'm mistaken, no harm intended.

    David Dayen is reporting that (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:41:57 PM EST
    Alan Grayson wants foreclosure fraud investigated as a systemic risk:

    In a letter to the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the board made up of chief regulators of the financial industry, Rep. Alan Grayson has called for a national moratorium on all foreclosures because of the systemic risk of fraudulent practices.

    Grayson has essentially taken this up a notch, beyond the documentation problems that were the source of the anguish over the now-vetoed HR3808. He thinks, as I do, that the documentation fraud covers a much larger fraud, rooted in the securitization of mortgages and the improper processes in which that slicing and dicing played out. This has confused the chain of ownership of the titles of the properties, throwing into question not just foreclosures but the mortgage-backed securities behind them, which represents trillions of dollars. So there's more than enough reason for the FSOC to step in.

    Grayson's suggestion (pdf), from his letter to the Financial Security Oversight Council (bold is mine):

    I write to encourage the FSOC to appoint an emergency task force on foreclosure fraud as a potential systemic risk. I am also writing to ask the members of the FSOC to use their regulatory authority to impose a foreclosure moratorium on all mortgages originated and securitized between 2005-2008, until this task force is able to understand and mitigate the systemic risk posed by the foreclosure fraud crisis [...]

    The liability here for the major banks is potentially enormous, and can lead to a systemic risk. Fortunately, the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation includes a resolution process for these banks. More importantly, these foreclosures are devastating neighborhoods, families, and cities all over the country. Each foreclosure costs tens of thousands of dollars to a municipality, lowers property values, and makes bank failures more likely.

    We'll see how this is received, but after reading Yves Smith, I can't imagine how anyone cannot see the enormous economic risk this issue is posing for us - and I'm very afraid of what happens if it's allowed to play out on its own.


    Tried to point out that exact issue earlier (none / 0) (#58)
    by BTAL on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:07:39 PM EST
    in another thread.  Guess it takes a D after one's name for those who countered the argument to finally see the light.

    Financial impact

    BTW, am not referring to you Anne.


    I, for one... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 05:36:20 PM EST
    am far less concerned with the greater financial impact to the country as I am the moral issue of letting banks scam people's houses away.  All the bundling and CDS'ing and assorted chicanery...as far as I'm concerned every mortgage out there should be renegotiated back to reality...it may not be righteous to let the over-consumers keep houses they had no business buying, but it's far better than letting the banks take all the fees, payments, and the houses and run...that's crazy.

    A moratorium is most welcomed, but this veto is the only bone we're gonna get...if there is a veto.  The banks would cry bloody murder and we know who gets the meat and who gets the bones.


    I understand the moral concept involved (none / 0) (#72)
    by BTAL on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 05:42:13 PM EST
    but the numbers just don't lie.  As mentioned before, handled incorrectly and Sept 2008 will have been nothing in relation to what could happen here.  

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 07:58:12 PM EST
    anyone should be getting away with anything - which is why the moratorium makes sense while it all gets sorted out.

    Too many people have had their homes pulled out from under them with little recourse, or any attempt by the banks to modify the loans - and that's because these aren't any longer what we all used to think a mortgage was: Bank A lends money to Borrower, and even if Bank sells loan to another servicer, it's still all in one piece.

    The uncontrolled greed with which the industry was infected led to the creation of securitized mortgages, choppped up and sold and re-sold so that there could be investors at all points along the chain and more people could make money on the deal.

    The way I understand this, people understand better than ever that foreclosure fraud is designed for one thing and one thing only: to make sure investors don't lose out on their investment.  And as I further understand it, getting to the bottom of this won't necessarily mean people are released from their obligation to pay back the money they borrowed, but it would mean that banks and lenders and servicers aren't allowed to bully their way to recouping their money.


    They can't sort it out (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 10:11:41 PM EST
    They took a whole bunch of crap mortgages, rated B's & C's, "securitized" them (God's work) chopped them up like they do with mutual funds, and sent them to Moody's where the crap was magically mutated into AAA rated Gold.

    The fraud perpetrated by Goldman, Morgan, Citi, etc. was so massive that I don't see how it could ever be "straightened out."

    The Savings and Loan scandal of the 80's was a tiny fraction of the criminality we've just witnessed, yet over 3000 people went to jail.

    Unfortunately, only the justice dept is capable of getting to the bottom of this disaster but that, obviously, is "off the table," as is the notion that we're a country of laws, not men.


    Read "The Short One" (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 11:31:43 PM EST
     by Michael Lewis to get a good smell of just how bad it was/is....

    read it, thanks n/t (none / 0) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:48:37 PM EST
    I wasn't suggesting that any of this (none / 0) (#83)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 08:26:00 AM EST
    can eveer be put back to square one; in many ways this would be like trying to take ground beef and reconstruct the cow from it - impossible.

    But I do think time is needed to (1) investigate the extent and severity of any fraud, (2) make sure that the homeowner isn't the only one burdened with any losses and (3) hold those responsible for any fraud accountable for it.

    What worries me is that we will once again hear that we can't really do the fair or right thing, because that will result in a systemic failure that will make the meltdown of 2008 look like a walk in the park.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 09:00:13 AM EST
    Sept. 2008 all over again...what really happened in Sept. 2008?  The big scam almost came to an end, collapsing under it's own weight...I asked then and I ask now, what's so terrible about the end of a big scam?  It should be a time to rejoice!  The reign of terror is over!

    Yeah yeah yeah...we'd all be on a breadline or something like that...I still ain't buying it.  Stockbrokers with no real skills except grifting mighta hit the bread line, but not those of us who actually provide something of value to others for a living...people always need food, goods, services...we don't need credit default swaps to live.


    The tragedy is.... (none / 0) (#89)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 01:08:05 PM EST
    It won't happen. We know what the problems are; we know how to fix them,


    We live in a time where reality is condemned as a Socialist plot. We live in a time when we can put robotic vehicles onto distant planets yet our common problems here on earth, which are really just mathematical in nature and easily solved, prove to be intractable.

    How do you solve anything when a huge plurality of our citizens truly believe up is down and when confronted with irrefutable evidence to the contrary simply shrug their shoulders and quip, "that's a lie." This is the contribution Sarah Palin has granted us.

    My criticism has been that only The President has the standing to rally the Nation and focus us on a road to recovery. The country spoke overwhelmingly in 2008 and gave him all the tools necessary to lead us forward.

    He just wasn't up to the job.


    I'm not so sure (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:16:08 PM EST
    I would've roasted their intentions, which were obviously not in the best interests of the bulk of the American citizenry.

    The opposition Obama faces is SO bereft of imagination and creativity it literally boggles my mind that the W.H. hasn't been able to rule the rhetorical day, every day, and easily.  I can only conclude it is because, ultimately, they don't have the creative or imaginative chops either. Few conservatives do. Ahem.


    Hmmmmm, is it okay if I get (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    a feeling of minor safety again only after seeing the actual Veto.  I don't even need it notarized, just need to see it go down...some sort of verifiable evidence.  This IS the man who lied to me and NEVER put the public option on the table.  Not the most trustworthy character out there right now.

    "The authors of this bill no doubt... (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:05:21 PM EST
    "...had the best intentions in mind..."

    Thanks for the veto, but gimme a break with that post-partisan crap already, kill it, burn it, dump it in the toilet.  Why does the Obama White House insist on legitimizing and dignifying those who do not deserve it in any way.

    The authors had intentions alright. Obvious ones.

    What planet does this White House live on?  Is their proper oxygen there?

    Tongue in cheek? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    Yeah, something dies twice (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:12:18 PM EST
    in Judiciary committee.  It is about to die three times and Bob Casey claims emergency and has the pulled jerked away from the Senate Judiciary committee and Sessions and Leahy whip it good and have it voted on....and it unanimously passes?  The best of intentions :)

    Good Work, BTD! (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by squeaky on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:06:01 PM EST

    Leahy "approves" of the veto, which is (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:40:57 PM EST
    really rich, considering that he was the one who moved the bill to the floor:

    "Senator Leahy understands the President's decision not to sign the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act, and he supports that decision," said a Leahy spokeswoman in a statement. "When Congress passed the legislation, no concerns or objections had been expressed. Now that concerns have been raised, Congress should reexamine whether this bill might have an unintended impact on foreclosures in the future. We certainly do not believe that is what Representative Aderholt and the other cosponsors of the legislation intended."


    After two rounds of not getting out of his committee, Leahy now wants me to believe that "no concerns or objections had been raised?"  Seriously?

    I cannot begin to express how unbelievably tired I am of being treated as if I am stone-cold stupid.

    I guess Leahy's "constituents" will be (none / 0) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:56:07 PM EST

    But shortly before the Senate's recess, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy pressed to have the bill rushed through the special procedure, after Leahy "constituents" called him and pressed for passage.

    (clearing throat) (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:09:02 PM EST
    Leahy's constituents, of which I am one, have zero doubt in their minds that the issue of this massive foreclosure fraud was absolutely not on his radar when this bill went through.

    This business of notarizations can screw up a whole lot of things that have to be done across state lines, not just real estate but probate and who knows what all else.

    Whether the authors of the bill were sneakily trying to help out home foreclosure fraudsters or not I have no idea, but I think y'all are pretty paranoid to think the entire Dem. leadership and rank and file all voted for it because they were eager to grease the wheels of foreclosure fraud.


    They greased the wheels on TARP (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by BDB on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:18:25 PM EST
    They gutted real credit card reform (e.g., capping interest rates) for fake reform.  

    They re-confirmed Bernanke.

    They gutted the audit the Fed measure and much of the Fin Reg., including folding the consumer protection agency into the weakest regulator, the Fed.

    Maybe this bill was about foreclosures and maybe not, but given that every time they've had a chance to side with the people against the banks, they've taken the bankers side, I don't know why I'd just assume their good faith.  The only things that seem to get through Congress fast are bankers' favors.  Why should I think this is any different?


    While it is admirable to defend your Senator (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by BTAL on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:18:51 PM EST
    the fact that he has been in the Senate for 35 years, is the 2nd senior Dem. in the Senate and is chairman of the Judiciary Committee (for the 2nd time), it appears to be a bit of a stretch to believe he was hoodwinked into letting this bill out of his committee, especially in the manner in which it was handled.  As noted in an article I read, there hadn't been a hearing on this bill since 2006.  

    History is a helpful guide (none / 0) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 08:53:40 PM EST
    This was end of session, when lots of stuff gets passed through in the rush to get out of town.  The fact that there hadn't been a hearing on it since 2006, when the housing debacle wasn't even on the horizon except to a very, very few far-sighted people, I think rather goes to prove my point.

    Vast, vast amounts of legislation gets put through without anybody in Congress fully understanding its implications.  You know that, right?


    As one of Leahy's constituents, (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 05:17:39 PM EST
    maybe you can enlighten us on why people in Vermont thought that this was such an urgent matter that it needed to be passed without any public debate. Personally I haven't read anything that indicated that they were mounting campaigns to promote this legislation but then again I'm not from your area. I can think of quite a few things that might fall into the "urgency of now" category that didn't get passed prior to them going home but this is not one of them.  

    BTW, it was Leahy's office who justified rushing it through because Leahy's "constituents" called him and pressed for passage.


    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:22:08 AM EST
    Vermont, as you may or may not know, hosts one heck of a lot of vacation homes owned by well-to-do people in other parts of the country.  Not far from me, way out in the middle of nowhere, is a vacation home owned by some jerk from Dallas who uses it one or two weekends a year.

    In any case, being such a small state, a fairly high proportion of not just real estate and probate but many transactions requiring notarization have to be done across state lines.

    Who the "constituents" are who were pressing Leahy I have no idea, but since we have one of the lowest underwater and foreclosure rates in the country, I'd be surprised if he was referring to banksters.  More likely real estate agents and probate attorneys.

    We have no major bank headquarters here, only a boatload of tiny community banks and a few slightly larger regional ones (ie, with half a dozen branches statewide), none of which are involved in this mortgage fraud stuff.

    My guess is it prolly didn't get public debate because it wasn't seen as having much more significance than declaring October 6 Vermont Lake Monsters Day (that's our minor league baseball team).

    Come on.  You're smarter than this.  Anything that gets overwhelming support from both parties in Congress these days is something they all think is completely insignificant.

    If you don't trust Leahy, do you imagine Bernie Sanders would vote to make life easier for banks to commit mortgage fraud?  Gimme a break.

    One very nice thing about living in such a small state is that there's zero incentive for incumbent pols to do favors in return for big contributions because they have no way of spending the money.  IOW, follow the money.  There's no earthly reason for Leahy to have snickered into his non-existent mustache while plotting to screw home owners in trouble by making things easier for banks to commit mortgage fraud.


    Don't buy this part (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 07:37:40 AM EST
    Anything that gets overwhelming support from both parties in Congress these days is something they all think is completely insignificant.

    Think Patriot Act and FISA. In fact the last thing I recall getting passed on a voice vote in the Senate was the renewal of the Patriot Act (2/10). In order for that to be passed by voice vote their had to be unanimous consent for that procedure. So that would have to include Leahy, Sanders and even Feingold. From what I gather voice votes are also often taken when no one wants to be actually on record for voting for the legislation.  


    Point taken (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 08:49:16 PM EST
    But as I think you know, I'm talking about things that aren't under pressure of some "existential threat" but are just routine business.

    Okay, I'm paranoid :) (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 07:24:45 PM EST
    Can't imagine why :)

    Sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 12:26:46 AM EST
    a cigar is just a cigar, you know what I mean?  This is certainly one of those cases.

    As I say, I can't speak to the motivations of whoever crafted this bill, and it's not impossible they were hoping to pull something over on the Congress as a whole before anybody noticed. But that's exactly what such a scheme would have depended on, nobody noticing.

    This foreclosure fraud stuff was not an issue until a couple weeks ago, and even then it was initially thought to be more or less an accidental byproduct of the rush to get things processed and not a deliberate strategy.  From what I've read about it, it's not even clear that the banks themselves were in any way profiting from it, just the middleman firms that were hired to process the paperwork because the banks couldn't cope.


    The banks couldn't cope? (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 08:44:11 AM EST
    Because they were creating a loan anyway that they could, even using fraudulent paperwork they were creating in some cases.  In other cases they encouraged those that they were lending to to lie.  It was in 2004 that the FBI first warned our leaders that mortgage fraud was taking place on an enormous scale.  Sorry, not buying it that Congress didn't know until a few weeks ago.  They knew before the rest of us knew.

    A few truths via the link to William Black

    *the FBI accurately described mortgage fraud as "epidemic"

    *nonprime lenders are overwhelmingly responsible for the epidemic

    *the fraud was so endemic that it would have been easy to spot if anyone looked

    *the lenders, the banks that created nonprime derivatives, the rating agencies, and the buyers all operated on a "don't ask; don't tell" policy

    *willful blindness was essential to originate, sell, pool and resell the loans

    *willful blindness was the pretext for not posting loss reserves

    *both forms of blindness made high (fictional) profits certain when the bubble was expanding rapidly and massive (real) losses certain when it collapsed

    *the worse the nonprime loan quality the higher the fees and interest rates, and the faster the growth in nonprime lending and pooling the greater the immediate fictional profits and (eventual) real losses

    *the greater the destruction of wealth, the greater the (fictional) profits, bonuses, and stock appreciation

    *many of the big banks are deeply insolvent due to severe credit losses

    *those big banks and Treasury don't know how insolvent they are because they didn't even have the loan files

    *a "stress test" can't remedy the banks' problem -- they do not have the loan files

    This was a write up that he did in order for people to better understand that "stress testing" was bull, understand though that when they "stress tested", if they didn't know before then that they didn't have the files on the assets and they couldn't effectively track them down...they knew after they "stress tested".  I'm pretty sure they knew beforehand though.  They all know, and it is impossible for me to believe that something that had been forced to die twice before in Judiciary Committee because it was dangerous was pulled before it could die the third time and was then thrown out on the floor to be voted on and that with all that in mind Leahy in complete innocence whipped it.


    Mortgage fraud (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 08:47:41 PM EST
    which was mostly, though not entirely perpetrated by morgage brokers, is not what's at issue here.  I think you actually know that, MT.

    Foreclosure fraud did not just (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 10:54:04 AM EST
    pop up like an evil jack-in-the-box within the last couple of weeks - this has been going on for some time - and I can't be the only one who thinks lenders' and servicers' lobbyists and industry honchos have not been bending the ears of members or Congress to try to prevent anyone looking too closely at the entire situation and impeding their ability to foreclose on residential property.

    I don't know if you've been reading Yves, but she really helps me to better understand the problem:

    Although the data points we have seen so far could be considered anecdotal, we have evidence that strongly suggests that major RMBS originators, the investment bank packagers, and the bank trustees failed to convey the notes (the borrower IOU, which is critical to having the legal standing to foreclose in 45 states) to the RMBS trusts starting in 2005, perhaps even earlier. And comments from industry insiders suggest this problem is pervasive.

    That puts a cloud over the entire US RMBS market, the biggest asset class in the world. This paper was sold as secured; the ability to offset the cost of borrower defaults by seizing and selling his house is critical to the value of the instruments. And if no assets were conveyed to a particular trust by closing, an even uglier possibility exists: under New York law, which was elected by RMBS as governing law for the trust, it would be considered to be "unfunded", which means it does not exist.

    Yves cites Felix Salmon:

    ...the mother of all legal messes has already emerged from the foreclosure crisis, and threatens not only a large chunk of the financial system but also venerable civic institutions, like the courts, which have thus far emerged from the crisis largely unscathed....

    Argentina's sovereign default has been called "the slowest trainwreck in history", but this one might turn out to be slower, bigger, and much less fair. Millions of people have already lost their houses to lenders who didn't have the proper paperwork, and it's unlikely they will ever get any redress. For people who haven't yet been foreclosed upon, however, it could now be a very long time before they lose their house.

    The big-picture consequences here are by their nature unpredictable, as no one has a clue how this might all play out. But I can think of a few themes:

    1. Bond investors, who have seen the value of their mortgage-backed debt rise impressively over the past 18 months, could find themselves unable to find any kind of bid at all. The paper will still be cashflowing, but those cashflows will be surrounded by enormous uncertainty, and no one's going to want to buy them except at extremely deep discounts until the mess is cleared up.

    1. Mortgage servicers will go from being assets to being liabilities, and banks which own mortgage servicers could find themselves on the hook for substantial losses.

    2. The time from default to foreclosure will become indefinite, and as a result there will be a significant uptick in strategic defaults, especially in states with judicial foreclosures.

    3. The "shadow inventory" of houses which aren't on the market but will eventually be sold once the bank gets around to foreclosing will grow substantially from its already-enormous level.

    The bad loans were the beginning; now we're dealing with the hamburger that was made out of them, and the consequences as outlined by Salmon.

    It's not a pretty picture, and it sure as hell didn't just come up in the last couple of weeks; here's a link to a foreclosure fraud website that might be of interest.


    OK, have it your way (none / 0) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 08:46:23 PM EST
    Patrick Leahy and every other member of Congress, including socialist Bernie Sanders, are totally in thrall to the big banks that don't even operate their states and deliberately tried to screw the American people with this bill.

    Frankly, I'm more interested in reality, complicated and ambiguous as it often is.


    This veto makes us look weak in the eyes of (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by steviez314 on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:01:57 PM EST
    Al-Qaeda's notaries.

    ROFL (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by PatHat on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:22:52 PM EST
    I'm glad (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 05:47:40 PM EST
    this bill is not going to be signed but I'm afraid he'll sign it after the election since he thinks that the people who put it forth "only have good intentions".

    Thanks, BTD (none / 0) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 12:57:02 PM EST

    Is this his first veto? (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:04:06 PM EST

    yes (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:04:45 PM EST
    Actually, sorta (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    Apparently there was one pocket veto.

    Turned into a veto veto (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:06:37 PM EST

    what was it? (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    Apparently I shouldn't rely on the WSJ article for anything...

    HJ Res 64 (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:11:20 PM EST

    I don't remember what this was about, exactly.


    Here we go: (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:14:24 PM EST
    1/12/2010 7:14pm:
    The Chair laid before the House the veto message from the President. (H. Doc. 111-84). In a Memorandum of Disapproval, the President stated the enactment of H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, P.L. 111-118), which was signed into law on December 19, 2009, has rendered the enactment of H.J. Res. 64 (Continuing Appropriations, FY 2010) unnecessary and accordingly, he is withholding his approval from the bill. In order to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed as unnecessary legislation, and in addition to withholding his signature, the President returned H.J. Res. 64 to the House along with the Memorandum of Disapproval . (consideration: CR H10)

    Why is he using a pocket veto? (none / 0) (#6)
    by TJBuff on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    Risky and I don't see any upside.

    Not a pocket veto (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    He is sending it back.

    I wish the language the WH used (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by lewke on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:17:56 PM EST
    was a bit stronger.  Instead of saying "Obama will not sign" that they would have actually said "Obama will veto"

    I know it's minor, but it makes me feel that Congress is going to try slipping this in with something else.


    That is the definition of a veto (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:14:23 PM EST
    Sending it back unsigned.

    Yes but (none / 0) (#50)
    by lewke on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:22:31 PM EST
    in the press release do they seem to avoid the word "veto."  The language just strikes me as soft.

    Every news source that came up on (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:14:41 PM EST
    google indicated that Obama will "pocket veto" the bill. Who is reporting that he is issuing a veto rather than a pocket veto? Do you have a link?

    I've satisfied myself (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:18:49 PM EST
    that he could not possibly pocket veto it: the Senate is holding pro-forma sessions. If the bill is to be stopped, he has to actually veto. And he is, because that's what it means to return the bill without signature.

    O.K. did the President. (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    return the bill to the House along with the Memorandum of Disapproval? Is the Memorandum of Disapproval necessary for it to be a veto vs a pocket veto?

    Per the C-span glossary a president can refuse to sign a bill and it can still become law.  



    No (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:32:07 PM EST
    Um the White House? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:18:49 PM EST
    Just above?

    The President is sending it back to the House of Representatives. This is what a veto is.


    Is he? (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:07:09 PM EST
    will return the bill to the House of Representatives

    A regular veto involves basically that (i.e., "return with my objections.")


    As far as I can determine (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    the House adjourned on 9/29/10 and is not scheduled to return until 11/15/10.


    1:04 A.M. -
    The House adjourned pursuant to H. Con. Res. 321. The next meeting is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on November 15, 2010.

        On motion to adjourn Agreed to by voice vote.

        Mr. Engel moved that the House do now adjourn.

    Procedure for regular veto: The President must exercise his veto within the prescribed 10-day period and return the rejected bill to the chamber of origin (bill originated in House) along with his objections in the form of a veto message.

    How does this work if the Senate is still technically in session but per the record the House has adjourned? Confusing....


    A little confusing to me (none / 0) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:13:27 PM EST
    WH.gov seems to shy away from the word "veto", in favor of "will not sign".   Maybe it is just intended to sound less harsh, or maybe this is usual and customary.

    Technically according to Art. 1 Sec. 7 it is (none / 0) (#27)
    by BTAL on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    "veto" as "veto" is not used in the text of the article/section.

    Conversely, it will be reconsidered in the house to be possibly voted on requiring a recorded vote with the 2/3 majority needed to override.


    Thanks, BTAL and MOBlue (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:27:28 PM EST
    BTW, I don't think he could do (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:10:00 PM EST
    a pocket veto, because the Senate isn't actually recessing.

    C-Span Congressional Glossary (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:20:33 PM EST
    A Pocket Veto is when the President fails to sign a bill within the 10 days allowed by the Constitution.

    Congress must be in adjournment in order for a pocket veto to take effect.

    If Congress is in session and the president fails to sign the bill, it becomes law without his signature. link


    And there is no record (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    of who voted for this in the House or the Senate from what I have read.

    Gibbs is the one to blame for the pocket veto (none / 0) (#30)
    by BTAL on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:29:41 PM EST

    President Obama will not sign a bill that critics say will make it easier for homes to be foreclosed on, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs announced.


    "The president is exercising a pocket veto, sending that legislation back to Congress to iron out some of those unintended consequences,"

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    Gibbs is an idiot (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:32:33 PM EST
    I never liked him--ever.

    Agree, but Gibbs (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:37:36 PM EST
    is unlikely to have made that up--someone must have told him that was the case.

    I consider it more likely (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    that he misunderstood what he was told. But that's just a character assessment.

    Entirely plausible as well. (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 02:38:56 PM EST
    yeah, me too (none / 0) (#48)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:15:26 PM EST
    Gibbs doesn't seem well (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:39:25 PM EST
    versed in what a veto entails.  I suppose this White House never anticipated needing to use one :)  But they got caught :)

    It must go back (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:23:11 PM EST
    To the house from where the bill originiated.  If this is going back to the House, then they are not in session, so that's where it becomes a pocket veto.  It doesn't matter that the Senate is stil. "open".

    I think.


    Is this officially an accomplishment now? (none / 0) (#41)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 01:54:12 PM EST

    My snarky take (none / 0) (#46)
    by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    A people's guide to foreclosures, robosigning, alan grayson and the notary bill. (warning socialism)

    I like to believe Elizabeth Warren has Obama's ear (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:16:43 PM EST
    Please, no one disabuse me of that notion.

    I hate having such a suspicious mind (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by sj on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    It's really not in my nature and it is exhausting to maintain.

    Having said that, the swiftness with which this whole thing rose and fell makes me wonder if that was the intended purpose all along: give the administration some populist creds.


    Okay by me (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by cawaltz on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 05:12:34 PM EST
    Whatever it takes to make him move in the right direction ought to be lauded.

    Frankly, it's about bleepin' time he start worrying about what the broad masses of people affected by what Congress passes think and feel.

    Everyone knows I am not a President Obama fan. I didn't even vote for the guy. However, I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. I thank Heaven that he was at least paying enough attention to see this as a disaster in the making. You might figure with all the rumblings of fraud that not passing this type of bill would be common sense. Apparently that is not the case for this particular Congress. (shaking my head at the absolute uselessness of these overpaid primadonnas who were such cowards they passed it with a voice vote).


    Mmmmm. Maybe so. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:44:40 PM EST
    what good does that do? (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    it passed the house and senate right?

    Maybe I'm (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:06:39 PM EST
    too much of a cynic, but I was considering whether the bill was passed so that the Congresscritters could placate their Big Finance donors with the idea that they passed something favorable to the lenders.  Then the Obama veto could be used by the Dems to shore up "the base" before the mid-terms.  Who knows?

    most people don't follow it that closely (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sj on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:11:02 PM EST
    Just thinking out loud here:  there aren't any real fingerprints on the bill.  Even Obama won't touch it.  And the WH is practically autistic when it comes to understanding human nature.  So following the train of thought ... it still doesn't feel out of the realm of possibility to me.  There's a kind of Mighty Mouse "here I come to save the day" vibe about the whole thing.

    Whatever.  It was a passing thought and I'm not inclined to defend it.  But I didn't feel like stifling it either.  The fact that my mind went there at all makes me realize just how much I don't trust the entire administration.


    They're not that smart or (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:09:50 PM EST
    that effective.

    heh (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:11:58 PM EST
    I don't know if that makes be feel better or worse.

    "me" not "be" (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 04:13:27 PM EST
    Me too. Also, (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 03:22:51 PM EST
    in our favor was the fact that Rahm is gone.

    Aha! Andrew Leonard at Salon (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 10:32:00 AM EST
    detects Warren's fingerprintstoo. Many uses of the words 'consumer protection' in the WH statement.

    correct me if i'm wrong, (none / 0) (#81)
    by cpinva on Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 04:43:14 AM EST
    but all a notary does is attest to the fact that they witnessed someone sign a document, period. they make no attestation regarding the legitimacy of the document, or its contents.

    in fact, since they don't normally know the people signing personally, they aren't actually even attesting to that person's identity, merely that they were provided with documents that claimed to identify that person, as being that person.

    that's it, in a nutshell. how this evolves into prima facie evidence of fact is a mystery to me.

    This bill will be back - mark my words (none / 0) (#90)
    by Bornagaindem on Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 06:09:54 AM EST
    We will work with them and other leaders in Congress to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward.

    This is just a euphemism for we need to put this aside for now because the NYT is covering it but next month when the american people have forgotten we can sneak it through again under the radar so don't worry bank buddies.

    What this crisis has made apparent is that because of the slicing and dicing and all the short cuts, it may become clear with real scrutiny, that the entities that  bought these mortgages don't really own the properties under the letter of the law.

    Would BTD please comment on the possibility that these guys can't really prove they have the right to sell these properties and in that case might all these under water homeowners be free and clear of mortgages and be able to stay in their homes (the lucky ones who have managed to hold on for so long) and that is the fear. These empty boxes the bankers bought and sold are really empty?

    In my mind that would be the best outcome  for getting the pain out of the market, just take your losses,  as I hear so glibly put  forward by the repugs who say the moratorium is a bad thing.