
![]() | |
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
|
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by!
July 9, 2009The Protection RacketBy Greyhawk...or: "How the 'Helping Families Save Their Homes Act' screws the Troops" We're from the government - we're here to help you. The good news: Believe it or not, our Congress and President have found a way to save a few bucks. The bad news: They're going to yank it right out of the pockets of U.S. troops.
Ever seen one of those gangster movies where the mob sells "protection" but it turns out it's protection from them? I believe many of our elected officials have seen those movies too. But their definition of protection seems a bit less honorable than any racket a self-respecting criminal could conceive. In their legal version we pay to protect them. (My apologies to any unelected members of non-political crime syndicates out there if I've been unclear - I'm not in any way shape or form accusing you of being congressional.) The above audio is an excerpt from a recent DoD Roundtable with U.S. Army Col. Shawn Shumake... Col. Shumake, an Army lawyer and Director of the Office of Legal Policy for the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, will discuss actions that the DoD has taken to help military renters during the current foreclosure crisis. He will also discuss how military members now enjoy the protections offered by the recently signed Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009. The guy asking the questions is me. The full version of the podcast is below, but I believe the excerpt above covers most of the salient points. I'd add that I have no doubt that Col Shumake is dedicated to ensuring the best outcome for military personnel in the matters under his control - and none of this problem is of his making. Hopefully he'll be able to help remove the financial burdens placed on military members by a new law signed by President Obama in May. Here's the background: historically, military personnel were not reimbursed for moves within a local area (exception: on-base housing initially unavailable at time of arrival on station, individual resides off-base until it is).
However, as the "foreclosure crisis" grew, the DoD identified a need to alleviate strains caused by forced, short-notice evictions of military renters whose leases were terminated due to foreclosure on the landlord. Colonel Shumake informs us a policy was put in place (by DoD even as Congress passed a bill signed into law by President Bush) in July, 2008 to fund moves mandated by such foreclosures. Good deal - as the Colonel explains, it wouldn't eliminate the pain of an unexpected move, but at least the servicemember wouldn't have to suffer financially for it. In May of this year, however, President Obama signed the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 - part of the larger Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. Under the terms of this law, tenants are "protected" in case of such a foreclosure in that they can not be evicted prior to expiration of an existing lease. (An exception - if the "new" landlord sells the property to a buyer to use as their principal residence the current tenant is allowed 90 days to vacate.) As a result, military families now won't be forced to vacate until their lease expires, therefore their move may be delayed a bit - but they will no longer be reimbursed for the expenses of that move because it's due to a normal lease expiration - not a foreclosure action. They'll still have to move - maybe with a bit more advance notice but no reduction in hassles - only once again they'll be the ones writing the checks. Or as someone else pointed out to me, they used to get screwed for free - now they have to pay for it. (And the only explanation offered is that well, maybe the landlord would have chosen not to renew the lease anyway - who knows?) Banks are screwed too, of course - they are forced to act as landlords for the duration, a role for which they are likely not currently postured. (For example, who at the bank will be in charge of dealing with leaky roofs, broken appliances, other tenant complaints...?) While I'm sure they'll find a way (just as soldiers will figure out something they can live without in order to pay for their moves) and few among us are going to shed tears for the poor banker, you might also want to look in a mirror (assuming you have some sort of bank account) to see who's actually going to pay for any shortfalls there. On the upside - the government just saved itself a few thousand bucks - they're the only ones benefiting from this. Hey, great job, guys! Maybe now we can afford those seven extra F-22s after all. (Just kidding - we're not talking about that much cash here - just a month's pay or so from every junior soldier "protected".) Regardless, I encourage all Americans to please congratulate your Senators, Congressional Representatives, and President (even if none of them actually read this bill before voting for or signing it) for finally discovering a way to save a few bucks - make the troops pay. And who knows - maybe someday soon Congress and the President will "protect" you, too. Postscript/prediction: more attempts will be made to explain this using The Mysterious Words of Power. Fortunately, I'm immune. Here's the full version of the podcast. There are two minutes of dead air at the beginning. Posted by Greyhawk / July 9, 2009 11:43 AM | Permalink 3 TrackBacksTrackBack URL: http://www.mudvillegazette.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/16419 Welcome to the Dawn Patrol, our daily roundup of information on the War on Terror and other topics - from the MilBlogs and various sources around the world. If you're a blogger, you can join the conversation. If you link to any of these stories, add a ... Read More "You know boss," I once said to my boss, "in this organization of over two hundred people, anything you can think of, from talent to perversion, we've probably got one here somewhere." - Or something to that effect. Over my career I served with thousan... Read More No one wants bad publicity, but when do efforts to minimize that go "too far"? Did I mention before how bad this idea was?Contrary to the insistence of Pentagon officials this week that they are not rating the work of reporters covering U.S. forces in ... Read More 8 CommentsLeave a comment |
November 18, 2009Dawn Patrol 11/18/2009 [Mrs Greyhawk]
Welcome to the Dawn Patrol, our daily roundup of information on the War on Terror and other topics - from the MilBlogs and various sources around the world. If you're a blogger, you can join the conversation. If you link to any of these stories, add a link to the Dawn Patrol too and your trackback will be added to the list. Hat Tips to the Dawn Patrol are greatly appreciated.Refresh for updates.
AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTANBoondoggle -- [3rd Time, New Country - in Afghanistan] Clinton in Kabul for Karzai's inauguration -- [Foreign Policy - AfPak] The war of leaks -- [Foreign Policy - AfPak] Ridding Afghanistan of Corruption Will Be No Easy Task -- [Los Angeles Times] Afghan Minister Accused of Taking Bribe -- [Washington Post] Vision for Victory, Part I -- [Washington Times] U.S. Turns to Local Guns-for-Hire to Guard Afghan Outpost -- [Danger Room - Noah Shachtman] NATO Chief Confident Afghanistan Will Have More Troops -- [Voice of America] Germany to extend Afghanistan mission another year -- [AP] Pakistani Successes May Sway US Troop Decision -- [New York Times] Where are Taliban and al Qaeda commanders, US media asks Pak -- [Daily News & Analysis] Pakistani Army Shows Off Captured Taliban Posts -- [Washington Post] IRAQIraqi Kurds Warn of Election Boycott in Dispute Over Seats - [Washington Post] US has time to reconsider Iraq drawdown plan-Odierno -- [Reuters] A few words from medics for the 41st Brigade -- [The Oregonian] Goodbye to Iraq, and thanks -- [The Oregonian] U.S. AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLDUS, China in Strained Diplomatic Embrace -- [Wall Street Journal] Obama: 'We've restored America's standing' -- [CNN] Somali Pirates : Maersk Alabama Attacked, Fights Back -- [Eagle Speak] Iranian COS Warns Russia: Your Security Is Tied To Ours -- [Memri Blog]
WAR ON TERROR /TERRORISMSuspected Fort Hood Shooter Believed to Be Self-Radicalized -- [Wall Street Journal] Guantánamo Won't Close by January, Obama Says -- [NY Times] SUPPORTING THE TROOPS...OR NOTNo Man Left Behind -- [Knottie's Niche] LTC Tim Karcher Update -- [Soldiers' Angels Germany] Support SA while Christmas shopping this year! -- [Soldiers' Angels Germany] Trees for Troops: Helping Military Families -- [AdAge.com] FOX 5 Special: I-Team VA Loans -- [FOX News] A FOX 5 I-Team investigation uncovered allegations of a nationwide scheme by banks and mortgage companies to defraud U.S. military veterans. The scheme, spelled out in court documents, claims banks are overcharging veterans on home refinancing loans. The question raised in a racketeering and class action law suit is how many of those loans involved banks defrauding U.S. military veterans. MILITARYMuslim discrimination in the U.S. military. Not. -- [Castra Praetoria] Time to revisit firearms policies on military posts -- [Atlanta Journal Constitution] Army's Record Suicide Rate 'Horrible,' General Says -- [Washington Post]
WELCOME HOMEVeterans' descendants welcome troops home to Fort Campbell -- [Clarksville Leaf Chronicle] 'Greywolf' Among First CAV Troops to Return Home -- [DVIDS] THE MEDIAWhere are Taliban and al Qaeda commanders, US media asks Pak -- [Daily News & Analysis] Army officials said that they have killed as many as 550 Taliban militants a month after the military began its campaign into the lawless territory, yet they acknowledge that hundreds, perhaps thousands more have melted away.
POLITICSRepublicans Criticize Obama's Call to Delay Hill Inquiries on Fort Hood -- [Washington Post] HUMOR / SATIRE
Iraq, Afghanistan, War, Terrorism, Military, Politics, Media, MilBlogs, dawn patrol Mudville
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
![]()
![]() I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2009 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com ![]() |
we dont really have a domestic or foreign policy but rather a Foreign Policy Faux Pas
Seems like much ado about nothing.Except for last year, a soldier that gets evicted from private housing had to deal with it just like a civilian and had to absorb the costs themselves. Now they get to stay until the end of their lease which is the agreed upon contract between the owner and tenant. Because of the housing market decline and the economy, more rental units are being foreclosed upon. Banks will be in charge of maintaining these properties if they have tenants or not. They own the property and its in their best interest to maintain it so they can sell it for the highest value. This seems like a fair compromise unless you want military personnel to enjoy a benefit not reserved for the rest of the population (which is not a problem but you should make it explicit).
Drew
Both the DoD and Congress determined last year that a military member should be compensated for the move. Whether other employers act/acted in a similar manner or not (what you're describing as "a benefit not reserved for the rest of the population") has no bearing that I can see. (I acknowledge it could be a valid separate issue, one with much broader application.)
This year Congress eliminated that and called it "protection".
By way of further clarification
DoD and Congress acted last year in response to a "crisis". (Quotes because that's their definition, though I will accept the characterization as accurate.) While that action (compensation to defray monetary cost) was also the "right" (in a moral, feel-good sense) thing to do, I would contend it was also motivated by an identified negative mission impact resulting from the downstream effects (time and financial losses) of an increase in lease terminations (to crisis level). They acted to reduce the individual's share of the financial burden. As a result of last year's law, legal, moral, and mission issues were aligned.
The change in the rules this year does nothing to reduce the crisis level numbers of lease termination - merely delays it in some cases - but does give the government a legal argument (Drew stated it as they get to stay until the end of their lease which is the agreed upon contract between the owner and tenant) that both trumps and tramples personnel issues or consideration of mission impact.
That might be an unintended consequence, regardless it is both significant and troubling as a response to an authentic crisis.
I didn't get the chance to ask a second question because the Col. ran on and on. But... I wanted to ask about numbers, numbers of military and dollars involved.
And, I'm not at all sure that there is a crisis. How many landlords are being foreclosed upon? I wonder if this was a solution in search of a problem like so many actions taken by this administration.
A great question, Chuck. I had a couple others, too. The Colonel definitely can't be accused of excessive brevity.
I believe our facilitator would forward an email for response if you sent one...
You appear to be assigning a problem to this bill which simply doesn't exist.
Military members will not be reimbursed (etc) if their lease expires. The bill doesn't change this. All it does is offer them a protection in terms of preserving their tenancy term in the event of foreclosure.
If they stay to the end of that lease, they'd be in no better or worse situation in terms of reimbursement than if the bill didn't exist. Except for the not getting tossed out of their house part.
Kilo
Sorry, your comment was trapped in a filter.
So would you rather spend an extra three months in a house before having to move out at your own expense or move ASAP without having to pay for it? I would go with the second option.
I would contend that in the past, at the normal expiration of a lease the typical military tenant would renew that lease and not move at all until PCS time rolls around. Obviously there are reasons why this wouldn't always be the case - growing family, etc.
But the entire point of this is that things are no longer "normal" - as indicated by DoD/congressional action last year (Unless, as Chuck implies, that's something of a fraud...) recognizing that moving expenses were becoming an undue burden on a growing number of military members, the mission was impacted, thus financial compensation was authorized. To insist now that the timing of the move (rather than the cost) was the real problem is disingenuous, at best.