Timely post Marie. I also have a friend who recently took a short sale on his home. Quite frankly a lot of people made bad decisions with the availability of these subprime loans. Even Sarah Palin's saying these days that these lenders required more oversight.

Right on target Marie. Strickland blames the homeowners and Jackson blames the lack of regulation. We can't regulate stupidity, but we sure can regulate the industry. Lenders made a fortune and now want government to come up with the needed bail-out. Hannah-Beth tried to regulate and the Phony-Tonys of the Assembly blocked it.

You're wrong, CAP-843. Tony doesn't blame the homeowners. Quite frankly, there is a lot of blame to go around here and to say that Strickland blames the homeowners and Jackson blames the lack of regulation is a complete oversimplification.

There were a lot of folks who went out and bought homes betting on the come and the banks and lending institutions did nothing to discourage them. It was a 24-hour-a-day party that we thought would never end and we all participated in it to some degree. Speculative buyers are as much to blame as the lenders. It takes two to tango and they were partners in the dance.

There were also those folks who signed on the dotted line for these subprime loans with no idea what they were signing on for. Now, do we blame the banks for lack of disclosure on these bad loans, or do we blame the buyers for not investigating what they were getting themselves in to? I think there's some shared responsibility here.

Neither Strickland or Jackson could have or would have prevented any of this from occurring. This is a false issue that Jackson's supporters are trying to gain some traction from. Looks like desperation time to me.

I will remind you of our earlier exchange, Mongo:

-----------

By Marie on October 6, 2008 10:27 PM
How do you feel about this particular law? See below:

Loans secured by real property.

Existing law provides for regulation of banks and savings
associations by the Department of Financial Institutions. Existing
law provides for regulation of real estate brokers by the Department
of Real Estate. Existing law provides for regulation of finance
lenders and residential mortgage lenders by the Department of
Corporations. Existing law provides that willful violations of
provisions governing savings associations, real estate brokers, and
residential mortgage lenders are crimes.
This bill would impose various requirements on consumer loans
secured by specified real property, defined as "covered loans." The
bill would prohibit various acts in making covered loans, including
the following: failing to consider the financial ability of a
borrower to repay the loan, financing specified types of credit
insurance into a consumer loan transaction, recommending or
encouraging a consumer to default on an existing consumer loan in
order to solicit or make a covered loan that refinances the consumer
loan, and making a covered loan without providing the consumer a
specified disclosure. The bill would provide that a violation of its
provisions would be subject to a civil penalty

--------------

By Mongo Flamo on October 7, 2008 3:17 PM
It sounds like it provides some much needed protection for consumers from predatory lending practices, which, as we're finding out now, were rampant during the so-called real estate boom.

I think there is some shared responsibility on the part of consumers too. Let's face it, a lot of folks got into mortgage loans that were far beyond their ability to repay and a lot of them were fully aware of this going in. They were under the false impression that the party was going to continue and home values would continue to soar; therefore, giving them the ability to flip the home at a big profit in a year or two. Of course, the bubble burst and everything went south and a lot of these folks are the ones who ended up defaulting on their loans.

So, there was a lot of speculative buying going on out there that the banks were faclilitating, of course, by giving anyone with a pulse a mortgage loan.

-----------------

By Marie on October 7, 2008 4:18 PM
This bill which you say provides "much needed protection for consumers from predatory lending practices" is AB489, which was passed and enacted into law in 2001.

Your pal Tony Strickland voted against it. With Strickland's support, the big banks watered the legislation down to the point that it protected almost no one. Meanwhile Strickland took $47,575 from the banking industry.

-----------------------

By skip on October 7, 2008 5:06 PM
Looks like Mongo just got caught by a predatory blogger.

Good job Marie!

----------------------

By Mongo Flamo on October 7, 2008 5:43 PM
Well, what can I say? You got me, Marie. I had the feeling I was walking into something, but I still I took the bait.

Anyway, do you not agree though that the consumer shares some of the responsibility for this fiasco? I mean, some of these people who signed on the dotted line knew they were getting in over their heads. Does personal responsibility not come into play at all?

And that exchange does not nullify any of the points I made previously. Read the very last paragraph in your post (from me) and you will see what I mean.

What the commercial illustrates is a larger pattern. Strickland takes money from corporations and then votes against legislation to protect consumers, our health, children, the environment, etc.

This is a pattern which was repeated numerous times:

Took $29,100 from the pharmaceutical industry and voted against efforts to control runaway drug prices (AB1957, 2004; AB2326, 2004)

Took $204,640 from the insurance industry and voted against requiring insurance policies to cover maternity services, including prenatal care, pregnancy complications, neonatal care and hospital maternity care. (SB1555, 2004)

Voted against requiring insurers to provide policyholders with the reasons for the cancellation of their homeowner’s insurance policies (AB1191, 2003)

Took $42,075 from the banking industry and voted against the Financial Privacy Act to prevent personal financial information from being sold without consent (SB773, 2002)

Voted against protecting consumers from exposure to mercury, toxic heavy metals and arsenic (SB633, 2001; AB455, 2003; SB463, 2001)

Voted against mandatory car seats for children under 6 (SB567, 2000)

Voted against prohibiting public schools from using carcinogenic pesticides on school properties. (AB 1006, 2003)

Took $46,350 from the automotive industry and car dealers and voted against the “Car Buyer’s Bill of Rights� (AB1839, 2004)

Voted against restricting “predatory� lending practices. (AD489, 2001)

Strickland took $26,300 from the utilities and energy companies and voted against capping outrageous electrical bills during the energy crisis. (AB 265, 2000)

Voted against landmark legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions (AB1493, 2002)

Tony Strickland took $81,500 from tobacco companies and voted against cracking down on cigarette sales to minors (SB757, 2001)

Looks to me like Phony-Tony is a pay for play political prostitute. One can say that HBJ does the bidding for the unions, but a close look reveals that these special interests are firemen, policemen, teachers, municipal workers, janitors, parents, the poor, the aged, the environment, etc. I'll go for someone who works for the benefit of these special interests over someone who is in bed with tobacco, gambling, mining, petrochemical, timber, insurance, etc. any day of the week.

This is why the blame game is so horrific. The real culprit is pure unadulterated GREED on everyone's part.

"Nancy refinanced her mortgage a little over a year ago". Why? Was she reducing her exitsting fixed interest rate? Or was she trying to get even more cash out of an already overpriced property?

"Three years ago her house was worth $600,000; now it's worth $400,000" Only if someone were to OFFER her that much. Otherwise her house is 'worth' what ever Larry Matheny is taxing her on.

Houses in my neighborhood go for around 450,000 - 500,000. My house is worth 109,000 to me because that is how much I have left to pay for.

People sign documents that they don't read and then when their world caves in around them they cry for help. If 'Nancy' "did not understand what she was signing" why was she signing it?

As a "mom who is just barely making ends meet" maybe she should look into properties she can afford. Or rent.

I've got absolutely NO sympathy for any one who is greedy enough to over mortgage themselves. It serves them right.

You will feel really bad when you hear this, John Doe. I left it out. She refinanced in a divorce settlement. She had no choice. My point is she never, ever should have been qualified for the inflated payment. And she was misled on the terms.

These subprime and adjustable rate mortgages usually come with higher fees and fines for the borrowers, meaning more profit for the brokers and lenders. Many borrowers signed documents they didn't understand because the documents were confusing. The sheer numbers of people now defaulting would point to something inherently wrong with the system.

sympathy here:
"Many borrowers signed documents they didn't understand because the documents were confusing" and yet they signed them.

"The sheer numbers of people now defaulting would point to something inherently wrong with the system." Ummm..... Greed? Borrowers who didn't take the time to understand what they were signing? What's wrong with the system is EVERYONE is GREEDY and EVERYONE wants to blame the other side.

Marie:
"she never, ever should have been qualified for the inflated payment" and yet she signed the documents agreeing to them.

"She refinanced in a divorce settlement. She had no choice." Really? Was a gun held to her head? Did a judge tell her that she had to do this? Everyone has a choice. I imagine one of her choices would be to buy out the bum of a husband. Another choice would have been to liquidate and move into a place she could afford. Choice and Free Will is what makes America great.

Wow, you're extremely harsh. I have discovered that anonymous blogs do not bring out the charitable side of human nature, especially not lately.

I think I will write about gardens in my next post.

I clearly wrote that it was her understanding that she was getting a five-year fixed of $1,700 per month and signed believing those were the terms. There was no greed involved here. Trust me on that one.

Why did loans get approved around the country for people who could not afford them? Well, that is good question. I suggest you peruse this website for your answers:

http://www.responsiblelending.org/

I'm harsh.
It's called a Reality Check.
"it was her understanding that she was getting a five-year fixed of $1,700 per month and signed believing those were the terms." You also wrote that "Nancy did not understand what she was signing". Did she or did she not understand the documents? If she didn't understand the documents why did she sign them? If she were going through a divorce didn't she have a lawyer who could have read them?

Dude, lighten up. Obviously if she thought she was signing one thing, and eight months later she was surprised that her rate adjusted that high, it was not explained well to her. Do you not understand how people unsophisticated in the vagaries of lending terms can be muddled?

John Doe:
Aside from picking apart my friend for signing a mortgage she didn't understand, what are your feelings about regulations on the mortgage and lending industry? Do you agree that the subprime mortgage fiasco should have been better regulated from day one?

Or are you just into blaming unsophisticated borrowers? I will agree with you that some people were greedy and got into mortgages they couldn't afford through "liar's loans" and other practices. But this isn't the case here.

Phony Tony could've voted to regulate this mess in CA when he had the chance and did not. John McCain got caught up in the Keating Five scandal before that and took thousands from Lincoln Savings just before it went belly up. This costs taxpayers billions.

Marie:
You keep saying that 'Nancy' is blameless (" I will agree with you that some people were greedy and got into mortgages they couldn't afford through "liar's loans" and other practices. But this isn't the case here.").

Yet you have stated that 'Nancy' "did not understand what she was signing and should not have been approved for the adjustable rate mortgage she was unknowingly saddled with" and "She thought she had signed a mortgage contract with terms offering her a fixed rate for five years".

Which is it? She was lied to or she didn't read and understand the contract she was signing?

My feelings about "regulations on the mortgage and lending industry"? Aren't they already reulated? Aren't there already regulations in place? Once again this is a situation where if the governement would ENFORCE the EXISTING rules we may not be in this mess. LAX ENFORCEMENT typically begets NEW laws. A horrible cycle that is present in all areas of government.

Am I "blaming unsophisticated borrowers"? No, I'm not 'blaming' any one. What I'm pointing out is that most of these people have no one to blame but themselves. This includes borrowers that don't bother reading contracts and lenders who decide to give loans to people who can't afford them.

I disagree. The Greenspan era of lax regulation over the subprime industry was a terrible experiment. This has been echoed in history. We had a similar situation with the Great Depression and it finally took Franklin Roosevelt to come along and make the banking industry act in a responsible manner.

Marie:

There really isn't enough information to assign blame with this topic. When "Nancy" filled out the Uniform Residential Loan Application did she check the amortization box fixed rate, GPM, ARM, or other with an explanation area to fill out?

Second, this rate is right under section II in the note where it should match the rate on the Application. Does it?

Sorry, Marie, but while I certainly empathize with Nancy's situation, I've got to agree with John Doe on this one. You've got to get good advice, ask questions, and read the fine print before you sign something as binding and complex as a mortgage loan documents.

It may sound harsh, but it's buyer beware. Always has been.

No amount of legislation and enforcement would have kept this woman in a house that was beyond her means. Maybe a bold, all caps disclaimer that the interest rate would reset in 8 months would have kept her out of this loan but at least (based on the terms described) she is sitting on a $400,000 loan on a house worth $400,000. Many people have it a lot worse. The days of short term interest only loans that rely on soaring housing markets are over.
The ad blaming this on Tony Strickland is just as deceptive as the lender who made this loan. Sounds like the bill mentioned didn’t work anyway.

Let those who are blameless cast the first stone!
The point is many people (perhaps most) have had an experience like this one with credit cards, loans, contracts of many types in recent years. Clearly, responsible decent families are in economic crises not of their making. To blame the victim begs the question, distorts the fundamental problem and allows for faulty reasoning.
This blogging stuff always ends up at the same place somewhere far from the original question posed by Marie’s thoughtful articles.
The question is who will better represent families in Ventura County as the 19th State Senator? Hannah-Beth Jackson is that person.

Hannah-Beth voted for the original (tougher) version of the mortgage bill in the Assembly (AB489). Strickland voted against the meaningful version in committee (he was on the Banking Committee) and on the floor. It was eviscerated in the Senate. It covers almost no loans now. Hannah-Beth did vote for the weak version as well. It was better than nothing. Strickland voted against the weak version, too.

The post was meant to illustrate how people can end up so upside down in mortgages. This same scenario is being played out across the country for many reasons. Some people were greedy. Some were confused. Some got bad advice.

I didn't really assign blame to anyone for this particular situation except to say that I personally feel she should not have been qualified for the higher loan payments. I also feel, as I posted earlier that the industry itself needed better regulation.

helen conly:
"Clearly, responsible decent families are in economic crises not of their making."?

Excuse me? My responsible decent family is doing just fine. Why? Because we didn't refinance our house as the 'value' soared. Because we didn't cash out any equity. Because we haven't ever maxed out credit cards and because we pay the things off each and every month.

I've got a 30 year fixed rate mortgage @5.75% and owe about 108,000 on it. Tell me where this economic crises I'm supposed to be having is.

"To blame the victim begs the question, distorts the fundamental problem and allows for faulty reasoning."? People who sign mortgage papers without fully understanding them deserve what the get.

Not everyone's a crackerjack financial whiz like you John Doe. Some rely on their lenders to help them find a loan they can repay. Some are too trusting apparently. Are you saying only those with the sophistication to understand terms like ARMS, FRMs, caps, bridge loans, PITIs and balloon payments should own a home?

Hey John Doe, why so angry? And why blow it at a lady who screwed up with her mortgage? Does it affect you personally like last week's tirade at the WAV construction guy because it messed with your commute? Chill out man.

skip:
"why so angry"?
I'm not angry. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistincies of Marie's reporting. In one paragraph 'Nancy' was lied to and in another 'Nancy' didn't understand what she was signing.

sympathy here:
"Are you saying only those with the sophistication to understand terms like ARMS, FRMs, caps, bridge loans, PITIs and balloon payments should own a home?"
Someone who is making (probably) the biggest purchase of their life should understand the terms and conditions of the contract they are signing. If they don't, there are plenty of places to eductate themselves. If they fail that, why should I as a tax payer bail them out?

John Doe makes the point very well. The government shouldn't be used as a mechanism to remedy every bad decision that is made by individual consumers. I'm sorry, but if you're getting into a long-term financial commitment like a home mortgage loan you should be seeking advice from real estate professionals, consumer agencies, friends, neighbors, family members, whoever may be in a position to give you some sound guidance on what to do and what not to do before you sign any documents.

People were in la-la land during the real estate boom. They were lulled into thinking that they could all of a sudden buy a house because they saw everyone else doing it. That's not responsible consumerism in my view. It's foolhardiness, pure and simple.

John Doe, please point to exactly where I said she was "lied" to. I said she claims to have been misled. I even wrote that her mortgage broker may disagree with that assessment.

I personally feel she didn't understand what she was signing. Do you not agree with that?

You as a taxpayer won't be bailing her out. I am hoping she will indeed find resolution on her own. I should point out that you as a taxpayer are bailing out lending institutions and banks, not homeowners. They are still defaulting and losing their homes, but the people who made the bad loans are getting help.

I think I agree with the other bloggers that the tenor of your posts here lately have been very contentious.

Thank you for posting, but please back up your claims with facts.

Marie:
I was paraphrasing when I said "'Nancy' was lied to". What I meant was the same thing you said: "she claims to have been misled"

I wholeheartedly agree that she didn't understand what she was signing. That's the crux of the issue.

And as a taxpayer I am providing $7 Billion of my tax dollars to help sort out this mess. Are you saying that the banks that take advantage of the program won't pass along those benefits to the borrower/home owners? It is my understanding that the Government is prepared to buy and re-finance these 'bad' loans. This takes the debt off the banks books and adds it to the governments. Since the government is using MY tax dollars to support itself, then it is MY tax dollars that are (possibly - depending on her bank's participation) bailing out 'Nancy'

"I think I agree with the other bloggers that the tenor of your posts here lately have been very contentious." Truth hurts. I recognize that. But to sugar coat it is to a disservice to your readers.

I am not sugar coating anything. I have been very matter of fact in my presentation of this issue.

You seem content to just blame borrowers without admitting that some lending institutions were also at fault in making these loans in the first place. There most certainly has been a culture of predatory lending going on.

This particular story has some more details to it that I am not going to post here. It is is easy for bloggers, safe in their anonymity, to take potshots at the misfortunes/mistakes of others. But there is always a real, human side to every tale. Call me a bleeding heart. You won't be the first one to do so.

We as humans are imperfect. I'd like to see us pull together more often to work on solutions rather than battling about the cause.

Marie:
"You seem content to just blame borrowers without admitting that some lending institutions were also at fault in making these loans in the first place. There most certainly has been a culture of predatory lending going on."

Here is what I said:
By John Doe on October 19, 2008 9:20 PM
"The real culprit is pure unadulterated GREED on everyone's part."

By john doe on October 20, 2008 2:59 PM
"Am I "blaming unsophisticated borrowers"? No, I'm not 'blaming' any one. What I'm pointing out is that most of these people have no one to blame but themselves. This includes borrowers that don't bother reading contracts and lenders who decide to give loans to people who can't afford them."

Marie:
"I am not sugar coating anything. I have been very matter of fact in my presentation of this issue." and yet I get taken to task for being
"been very contentious". The truth hurts. I'm not being contentious. I'm being truthful without emotion.

Wow. I stumbled across this string just now. I am struck by JD's and MF's tone - "reality check" and "buyer beware" ... how easy it is for you to be smug and judgemental!

What is the point in spending so much time being "right" about one particular sad example?The greed you talk about has little to do with "Nancy's" story. It has saturated our culture since the 80s thanks to the "Great Communicator," deregulation, and the trickle down theory that never did. It is starkly illustrated by the stats we see all the time about the yawning divide between most Americans' wages and the top percentage of the stratospherically wealthy, the vastly increased numbers of the working poor, and the virtual extinction of the middle class.

Don't be so quick to criticize someone for trying to hang on to what may be their one asset - at the very least when there's a divorce the pain of also being uprooted from one's home (especially for kids) is better avoided if possible. Furthermore, not always having the best judgement in times of stress is common.

I too have refinanced my house in the past year, to buy out my husband's share as part of a divorce settlement. My mortgage broker was the same one we used to buy the house, and was very helpful. I am fully aware of what my terms are. So far I am managing - and with the proceeds my husband was able to buy a condo which is to me better for everyone. I'm very grateful that I took action before all this melted down, but I can attest to how difficult it is to try and make the best long-term decision. To me, selling the house in this market would have just meant both my husband and I would lose financially on top of the emotional loss.

I'm not excited about the bailout - I pay taxes too, and so does "Nancy," no doubt. I wish it were just YOUR taxes going to it, JD!

I agree, Marie, it's time to cultivate the garden. As for JD and MF, and their "truth," they no doubt will have their turn - if only when they meet their Maker.

Thank you for posting, veegee. I truly appreciate it.

John Doe, I also thank you for posting. I appreciate your honesty, at least.

Mongo and John Doe:

I always agree with "buyer beware" as the best defense against being defrauded, but I also believe mortgage brokers do bear responsibility to not defraud their customers.

Second, since lenders all have FDIC insurance, their fraudulent behavior has consequences on depositors, does it not. Ask a depositor from Indymac if they knew about the loan portfolio?

It is not in the interest of a lender to create a poor performing asset. If a lender is misappropriating depositor funds as these bad loan decisions demonstrate, the lender isn't just damaging a borrower, he/she is misappropriating depositor's accounts and violating their fiduciary responsibility of safe-keeping. FDIC insurance covers bad loan decisions and threats to depositors all the time.

We do not know in this case all the circumstances, but certainly you would agree that if the settlement statement didn't match the note and the note had a couple Negative amortization conditions buried in the back that will force an inevitable default, this should be considered mortgage fraud and fraud perpetrated on unsuspecting depositors.

Fraud, whether it be mortgage or otherwise, should be punishable with a serious sentence in jail.

Maybe, I'm too much of a law and order conservative, but these SOB's who commit mortgage fraud ought to be hauled into court and if found guilty, they should be strung up.

They have misappropriated depositor funds into bad mortgages threatening the "safe-keeping" principle that goes back to banking's beginning.

So as a question to a few of the "buyer beware" crowd, have you investigated your bank's loan portfolio?

If your bank goes under, should you just lose your money?

Scott, your wisdom in these matters is much appreciated. I am always happy when you post on my blog.

Hi Marie:

Buyers should beware, but does that mean we deserve to have our entire life savings wiped out because of what appears to be fraud in many other cases?

Should we have known the unsoundness of credit default swaps, FNMA, and FHLMC mortgage backed securities while we managed our 401(k) or have seen our house value implode?

Many borrowers did everything right. They put 20% down, bought a fixed rate, never tapped their equity to buy RV's and speed boats. Yet, these people have taken it on the chin right now.... That is BS!!!

Their 401(k)'s, their small stock accounts for their kid's college education are nearly gone. It's minimal now because of fraud of borrower and lender misappropriation of depositor funds.

I just can't believe no one seems to be calling for law and order. Why aren't these criminals being arrested?

Scott Blough:
"have you investigated your bank's loan portfolio"

I don't use banks. I am a member of two credit unions.

Have I investigated their loan portfolios? No. Do I have faith that the board of the credit unions will protect my money? Yes.

I agree with John Doe, Scott. People need to stop depending on the government to right all the wrongs in the world. Look, I've lost over $40,000 in 401K investment funds in the last month alone. But, I knew the risk going in. I could have diversified more, or relied less on stocks in my investment choices, but, you know, those are the chances you take in a free market economy.

I am confident that the market will turn around though and all those stocks I've bought at bargain basement prices today will shoot up in value as the economy recovers. Patience pays off. That's the way it works.

Mango hits the nail on the head. Which is why I was so dismayed when McCain announced his plan to take back all the mortgages, revalue the homes and issue new mortages. My husband and I sucked it up during the last 10 years and didn't take out equity for fab vacations, remodels, etc. Now everyone who did could be rewarded yet again. Now that isn't fair.

There is a difference between the bailout legislation we are seeing now and the situation in 2001 that the commercial deals with. At that time, predatory lending practices were just starting to rear their ugly heads. This particular bill, AB489, would've cracked down on those practices, but it was continually watered down to the point where it now covers almost no loans.

Tony Strickland took almost $50,000 from the banking industry and voted against the tough version in committee. Then he voted against the watered down version, too.

This happened at the federal level, too, with legislation designed to further regulate these predatory lenders and it was pared down under pressure from the banking industry.

Last night I went over to my friend's house and studied her loan contracts. I then emailed someone the information who is very astute. There are clear irregularities. The box on her Uniform Residential Loan Application has the fixed rate box checked, but the loan "proof sheet" says ARM.

The loan broker made more than $20,000 on the deal.

Scott is 100% correct. He knows exactly what he is talking about. These mortgage brokers / bankers that were used to making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, got greedy and as a result of sales managers needing to meet a quota; many borrowers got defrauded into taking mortgages that they knew nothing about. The broker always gets their commission but now who gets to pay for it??? All of the taxpayers??? Think about it.

Thank you Scott for understanding what is really going on and start building a prison just for fat mortgage brokers! Most of them are fat pigs!

Ok...I've tried to read through all the posts...whew!

I'd go with yes, let the buyer beware, and yes, folks should know, or educate themselves into what they are doing.

Me...I'm no financial whiz, be the first to admit it. I'm lucky, my wife has more financial acumen then me, and my lender (they use a stagecoach as a logo) seems to have been more upfront...so, guess I've been lucky. I could as easily been "Nancy" though.

My thought is what makes "Nancy" different from AIG, or Bear Stearns? For that matter WaMu?

Those are institutions that were EXPECTED to know better. They have the training, the expertise, for gosh sakes the MBA's after their name.

Yet..we have a national need to conduct a "bail-out". Ok.....

Why do the "brightest" and "best" sic...get a bailout when "Nancy" does not? More the point, why so harsh on "Nancy"? Is it just easier to pick on the little guy?

Sure, politicians may have loosened the rules of the road when it came to home finances..that does not mean that any company had to comply. They chose to, seeing a financial bonanza.

So now what? The big guys get bailed out, the little guys get squat.

That's capitalizm for you!

Honestly, Tom, I think I could just post "Mary Had a Little Lamb" right now and these guys would attack me for being pro-sheep.

Oh well. Life is messy. Blogs are messier.

Did I tell you I ate lamb chops last night.......

I'm totally pro sheep too so no worries here...

Most of the bills that you posted at the beginning are misleading and don't explain why Tony voted against them. I love how you make it seem like he wants kids to get sick. He voted against these because they just weren't going to work or they were going to raise taxes. He believes instead of creating a new tax they should eliminate a program that is wasteful...and we all know there are plenty of those.

"Took $29,100 from the pharmaceutical industry and voted against efforts to control runaway drug prices (AB1957, 2004; AB2326, 2004)" It is against federal law to bring drugs across the boarder even the Canadian boarder. the other was supported by unions where as doctors and mental service did not. The Senate actually did not pass this one.

"Took $204,640 from the insurance industry and voted against requiring insurance policies to cover maternity services, including prenatal care, pregnancy complications, neonatal care and hospital maternity care. (SB1555, 2004)"
Why should a single male have to pay for insurance that includes maternity services? Doesn't make sense. What about couples who are past child bearing years? It's like making woman pay for prostate checkups and treatment. Does that sound right to you? It's like buying a pair of size 10 shoes and having the price of a size 6 included in your total.

When I have time I'll get to the others.

Damien, there was nothing wrong with any of those bills you cite and the only ones fighting them were the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry.

I have been disgusted with the medical insurance industry for a long, long time ever since we tried to buy our own policy when my husband had his own business. They denied just me for coverage because of a very, very minor digestive disorder which almost half the population over 40 has. They told me I had to go out and buy an expensive high-risk insurance policy.

All they care about is profits. I am sick of their stranglehold on public policy through campaign donations.

Since you're out doing research, why don't you look up AB947 and tell me why Strickland decided to vote against a bill which protects kids from pesticide overspray incidents from neighboring fields? This bill was written with the ag industry, so don't tell me they didn't want it passed.

AB947 - Natural resources: California Ocean Resources Management Act of 1990. Sponsor: Hannah-Beth Jackson / 2003-2004 Legislature

Summary
This bill establishes a process for enhancing the state's focus on, and modifying its responses to, coastal erosion.
Status
This bill did not pass either house. It did not become law.

I think I have the wrong bill...what year

What do you mean there is nothing wrong with the ones I cited above. Why should I pay for insurance I don't need nor will ever use? It does not make sense. But if your into socialized health care then...

Ok found it...was in 2001-2002. Actually Strickland voted for it in 2001 when it was first introduced then it was amended with extras which caused many to reject the second version in 2002.

Interesting thing about the seat belt law...
"Allows the court to reduce or waive a fine for a violation of the child passenger restraint requirements if the court finds that the defendant is economically disadvantaged". So its ok to endanger your child if you can't afford to buy a car seat. Who knew?

You are very wrong about that one, Damien. The pesticide legislation was watered down, not amended to include extras. I followed this legislation all the way through. My daughter was one of the dozens of children sickened at Mound Elementary, which inspired this legislation.

This is from Timm Herdt's recent article,

...Strickland told me recently he doesn't precisely recall why he voted no, but "it was a tough vote no matter how you voted . It had an impact on the ag economy here locally. You want to protect kids, but you don't want to have a huge impact on the ag economy."...

But the bill was written with the Farm Bureau. They wanted it to happen. So there's no excuse to vote against this. None. And don't try to make excuses for him. He doesn't even have one.

He voted for it the first time so something changed the second time around. I don't believe anything Herdt says.

He must've received a big donation from the petrochemical industry.