Casting aside partisan differences, Senate Democratic and Republican leaders said on Tuesday that they would work urgently on a package of legislation to help millions of homeowners at risk of foreclosure, with the hope of bringing a bill to the floor as early as Wednesday afternoon.

Senator Barack Obama called Thursday for tighter regulation of mortgage lenders, banks and financial houses, even as he spoke of pumping $30 billion into the economy to shield homeowners and local governments from the worst effects of the collapse of the housing bubble.

Drawing a sharp distinction between himself and the two Democratic presidential candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona warned Tuesday against vigorous government action to solve the deepening mortgage crisis and the market turmoil it has caused, saying that “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”

“The reality is, prices will fall; there is no way to keep them up,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal group in Washington. “If we have the government get in, either as the owner of the debt or the guarantor of the debt, a lot of the decline will be shouldered by the taxpayer.”

Has Harry Reid realized that the just-enacted $168 billion stimulus plan will do nothing to encourage economic growth? On the same day that President Bush signed the bill, February 13, the Senate Majority Leader introduced Son of Stimulus, with plans for a floor vote today.  If all politics is local -- and make no mistake, this hastily-drafted bill is a political stunt designed to gain Senate seats in November -- Senators might ask how costly Mr. Reid's national solution will be for their constituents. Republicans are right to oppose it.

The biggest winners in the economic rescue plan now awaiting President Bush's signature are likely to be Americans with more expensive homes who will be able to refinance their home loans at cheaper rates.

Congress, facing the prospect of an election-year recession, passed an emergency plan Thursday that rushes rebates of $600 to $1,200 to most taxpayers and $300 checks to disabled veterans, the elderly and other low-income people. President Bush indicated he would sign the measure.

Amid the worst housing crisis in a generation, pressures are mounting for an expanded role by the two mortgage finance companies, even as lawmakers also call for a tightening of the reins on them in the wake of multibillion-dollar accounting scandals.

Just when Californians are tossed a long-sought bone in the mortgage market, conditions on the ground threaten to erode the proposed benefit.

As Congress moves to lower borrowing costs on so-called jumbo mortgages, lending experts caution that the benefits to borrowers may be limited.

State attorneys general are talking to each other and could join their separate investigations over the subprime mortgage meltdown, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said.

An economic aid plan to send rebates of $600-$1,200 to most taxpayers passed a key test Monday in the Senate.  The bill adds $10 billion in tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds to help homeowners refinance subprime loans and adds measures included in the House-passed bill to increase the availability of large mortgages and allow those holding subprime loans to refinance. It would raise the limit on Federal Housing Administration loans and the cap on loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy to $729,750.

States and local governments would be allowed to issue an additional $15 billion in tax-exempt mortgage bonds over three years, under President George W. Bush's annual budget proposal released Monday.The Senate is currently considering a measure attached to its fiscal stimulus bill that would lift the cap by $10 billion over the same timeframe, 2008 through 2010.

Congress is about to sell us the biggest fraud in American history.  It's been highly touted as an economic stimulus bill that will help millions of Americans - and has the backing of both President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But, as the old adage goes, nothing comes for free.

Subprime lenders, homebuilders and banks stand to benefit from a $14.4 billion tax break passed yesterday by a Senate committee as part of an economic stimulus package.

Lawmakers may say they are outraged, but it was actually two key pieces of legislation that primed the pump for the housing implosion.

Ben S. Bernanke is turning out to be a better friend to U.S. homeowners with subprime adjustable-rate mortgages than Henry Paulson, according to analysts at banks including Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp.

In short, if this bill becomes law a mortgage would no longer be a matter between a borrower and a lender, but instead, between a borrower, a lender and a judge. Rather than interpreting private contracts, judges would suddenly be able to rewrite them.

In addition, the plan will increase the limits for loans purchased or insured by the Federal Housing Administration as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It would increase those loan limits to $725,000 and $625,000, respectively. This expansion of federally sponsored mortgage debt is but a continuation of risky lending practices, backed implicitly by the American taxpayer.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the $150 billion economic stimulus package worked out by President George W. Bush and U.S. House leaders was a "rare bipartisan moment" that's likely to be repeated in the Senate.

As a general rule, economic policies command bipartisan support only when they're incoherent. Take, for example, the fiscal stimulus package now bulldozing its way through the legislative process. It's poorly conceived, it's unlikely to work, and it's sure to do a lot of collateral damage.

Shrugging off a personal plea from President Bush, senators from both parties said yesterday that they will push for significant additions to the $150 billion stimulus package hammered out Thursday by House leaders and the administration.

Useful, but flawed and probably not enough: that, in general terms, was the verdict pronounced on the $150 billion emergency spending plan agreed to by the White House and Congressional leaders on Thursday in a bid to stimulate the suddenly sputtering economy.

Leaders of the House of Representatives and the White House agreed that the size of loans that can be purchased by government-sponsored mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be increased sharply for a year from the current cutoff of $417,000.

California lawmakers should stop trying to micromanage the mortgage mess. There's no one-size-fits-all solution.

House Democrats and the White House have reached an agreement on an economic stimulus plan. Unfortunately, the plan — which essentially consists of nothing but tax cuts and gives most of those tax cuts to people in fairly good financial shape — looks like a lemon.

How can the government help homeowners without putting taxpayer dollars at risk or sending the wrong signals to the housing market? There is no single answer. But the reality is that markets do work, and although credit markets are in distress, progress is being made.

The largest U.S. housing finance companies, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, may report $16 billion in write-downs for the fourth quarter due to the falling value of their subprime mortgage investments, according to Credit Suisse analysts.

Everyone wants to know who is to blame for the losses paining Wall Street and homeowners.  The answer, it seems, is someone else.

With house prices sliding and defaults on the rise, mortgage companies negotiated easier terms with 370,000 troubled subprime borrowers during the second half of last year, according to industry data released Friday.

The chief of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp warned on Thursday that if industry solutions fail to help subprime mortgage borrowers, the odds of government involvement will increase.

A mortgage industry trade group insisted Thursday that lenders are doing a better job of helping troubled borrowers than outside reports say they are.

The White House released on Friday the following fact sheet on President Bush's plans to stimulate the U.S. economy.

"The deck has been stacked in favor of the big banks and the big financial companies and not for the consumers and homeowners," he told the residents.  Obama has proposed creating a $10-billion fund to help prevent foreclosures, eliminate some taxes and fees for families who must sell, and offer counseling to homeowners.

The main intellectual engine driving Democratic responses to the housing crisis isn't headquartered in a flashy Washington think tank or K Street suite, but rather in a restored cream-and-brick building on Durham's idle West Main Street.  It's the nonprofit, nonpartisan Center for Responsible Lending.

A trade group for real estate agents predicted today that the pace of U.S. home sales will pick up significantly in the second half of 2008, bringing total sales for the year marginally higher than in 2007.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Tuesday the administration was exploring what would be a significant expansion of the program to help at-risk mortgage holders.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer plans to propose a bill in his State of the State address Wednesday that aims to assist homeowners facing foreclosure and to tighten lending standards.

The drag on the U.S. economy from a deep housing slump should ease by mid-year, paving the way for stronger economic growth, a top White House adviser told CNBC.

They don't know it, but taxpayers stand to lose billions as the housing bubble bursts. And in a bipartisan effort to "do something" to save the housing market, President Bush and the Democratic Congress appear set to put taxpayers on the hook for billions more.

To combat abusive lending practices, seven states have launched a standardized registry for mortgage brokers. Eventually, regulators nationwide will know about those who fail to register.

With public sentiment on the economy still sagging, President Bush will make a new push for congressional action to shore up the troubled housing market, a top aide said.

During the housing boom, the subprime industry succeeded at more than just writing mortgages. It also shot down efforts by some states to curtail risky lending to borrowers with spotty credit.

Beaming with pride and talking a mile a minute, Johnnie Pitts stacked up piles of legal documents on his living room floor the Wednesday before Christmas. The San Francisco Muni driver had just returned from having his signature notarized on agreements that permanently modify his once-exorbitant mortgage to a reasonable interest rate, allowing him to keep the three-bedroom bungalow on Oakland's MacArthur Boulevard.

The mortgage debacle and its sleazy backstory -- the teaser rates and other sales gimmicks lenders concocted, and the sales commission they paid brokers, to lure unsophisticated homebuyers into inappropriate and ultimately unaffordable, properties plays like a rerun of the telecom meltdown.  So too does the bad legislation that may emerge, like Sarbanes-Oxley. Exhibit A is Barney Frank's Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act.

An expanding chorus of state officials are calling for legislation to protect Californians from losing their homes as the subprime mortgage crisis deepens. Do you think state lawmakers should step in with solutions? If so, do you have any suggestions to help with the problem?

Every economist will tell you housing is cyclical. If the borrowers in default can find a way to counter the present downturn, there's a great chance they can come out on top.

Given how important the credit score has become in consumers' lives, it's hard to think that someone would deliberately sabotage this all-important number.  A credit expert raised this prospect in the context of the recently announced plan by the Bush administration and lenders that would temporarily freeze interest rates on certain troubled subprime adjustable-rate home loans.

The subprime-mortgage mess may require more federal intervention, but it should be done judiciously, and for the right reasons.  Let the Fed judge how much strain the system can stand - and, as much as possible, let the players themselves work out their problems according to the rules already in place.

There should be a minimum safety net to catch those who are in dire financial straits. But this doesn't mean the government should pay off their mortgages, or help those troubled financial institutions remain solvent.  If the government bails out these bubble riders, that will only encourage people to jump on the next bubble.

A bailout is nothing more than the government using its power to force some people to give up their money (or freedom) for the sake of others. Any government "borrower assistance," i.e., borrower bailout programs, such as a Massachusetts' proposal to give struggling homeowners new loans they could not get on the free market, excuse borrowers from the natural consequences of their voluntary risks.

The Boston Federal Reserve Bank and five U.S. banks unveiled details on Thursday of a $125 million program to help New England homeowners refinance into fixed-interest-rate home loans if they are facing increases in monthly mortgage payments that they cannot afford.

The economy sprinted ahead at its fastest pace in four years during the summer, although it is expected to limp through the final three months of this year as the housing and credit debacles weigh on individuals and businesses alike.

Citizens Against Higher Taxes announced its opposition to taxpayer bailouts of subprime mortgages. Such an action would be nothing more than a new taxpayer subsidized program that rescues disreputable mortgage, banking or brokerage firms at the expense of working families, taxpayers and responsible homeowners.

The Federal Reserve on Tuesday is set to consider a plan that would mark the central bank's biggest regulatory response to date of the country's mortgage turmoil.

In the wake of the subprime crisis, the market has turned against all except "cream-puff borrowers" -- those with no weaknesses. The cream-puffs can borrow today on pretty much the same terms as before the crisis. But borrowers with blemishes on their applications are paying much higher prices and face a much higher risk of being turned down altogether.

The housing industry is counting on help from Congress to prevent a tidal wave of foreclosures that would further depress residential real estate values.

It may be the only test you flunk if you score too high: It's called the "FICO Test," and it is a key element of the sometimes arcane new guidelines governing which homeowners qualify for "fast-track" interest-rate freezes on their subprime mortgages and which don't. If you've got a FICO of 675, which in a traditional mortgage context should qualify you for reasonably good terms, forget about a fast-track rate freeze. Your credit is too good. But if you've got a FICO of 610 or 620 -- subprime territory by most lenders' standards -- you pass.

Nothing is more fun than doing noble deeds with someone else's money, and right now Democrats are getting ready for a rollicking good time. Contemplating the subprime mortgage problem, with numerous borrowers unable to pay their debts, the party's presidential candidates and congressional leaders have a simple solution: Fleece the lenders.

The Senate moved against the worsening mortgage crisis Friday, voting to make it easier for thousands of homeowners with ballooning interest rates to refinance into federally insured loans.

It's a bailout! That's the refrain from some of the critics of the Bush administration's plan to help certain subprime borrowers, with either an FHA refinancing or a five-year interest rate freeze.

The response by Democrats seems to be best expressed by Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who has called for using hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to prop up subprime barrowers. This "No effort should be spared to save everyone who has taken out a risky loan" approach is not so far from promising everyone a free house.

A plurality of Americans say the government shouldn't provide financial assistance to borrowers who can't afford their mortgages, a new poll shows. But 41% agree strongly that mortgage brokers should be better regulated.

It is not quite right to describe the new White House plan as a bailout of subprime mortgage borrowers. Actually, it is a bailout for a tiny fraction of those with adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), not subprime loans per se. Nearly half of all subprime mortgage rates are fixed-rate loans, and only 32% of ARMs are subprime.

If ever there was a nightmare we should have seen coming, it is the subprime loan default crisis. A massive industry sprung up in recent years devoted to persuading home buyers and existing homeowners to take out irrational mortgages.

Distressed borrowers looking for relief from the recently announced White House foreclosure prevention plan may be in for a disappointment.

The subprime rate freeze plan announced by the Bush administration last week was clearly designed to win votes. I just wonder whose.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan to prevent as many as 1.2 million people from losing their homes by freezing interest rates on subprime adjustable-rate mortgages will bring no benefit to the depreciating housing market.

Don't be fooled. The Bush administration's deal with lenders to get them to freeze interest rates on some adjustable-rate subprime loans isn't really about rescuing lots of homeowners. It's mainly about buying some time for mortgage servicers.

Would-be buyers say they will have to delay homeownership while aid for reckless borrowers keeps prices elevated.