I don't work in the financial sector so I might not be as smart as you.
If a homeowner can't pay bills and goes to bankruptcy court and the judge reduces the amount of the mortgage, who takes a loss?
The lender, right?
But the lender voluntarily loaned money to someone who can't pay their bills. While the cheer squad for the financial industry likes to blame irresponsible borrowers, I fail to see how lenders aren't at least equally irresponsible. Lenders are the ones who have all the computers and financial whizzes to calculate risk. Borrowers are relatively ignorant of risk.
There's a reasonable argument to be made that changing the rules after the loan is made is unfair.
But the financial sector had no problem changing the rules about bankruptcy and applying the new rules to debt that existed before the change.
So the financial sector is willing to engage in ex post facto rule changes that screw borrowers. Now they are experiencing the game going the other way. Oh, well.
If the the borrower is really going to default on the mortgage completely, the lender is better off taking the lower mortgage payment than repossessing the property.
Will the judges have the power that can be abused? Yep. But if the judges don't have this power foreclosures may go up even more. And this has negative consequences for a whole bunch of people.
She was a career Cullerton staffer that Cullerton put in the legislature.
(BTW, I'm curious what kind of "consulting" Feigenholtz did while Cullerton's chief of staff.)
In the legislature Feigenholtz carried bland, feel-good bills, but did not distinguish herself.
Feigenholtz is running as the female candidate, but avoiding issues. After reading her response on Social Security I have concluded the woman is simply ignorant of public policy issues. See Proviso Probe.
Quigley is arguably the most courageous of the lot. He's fought the good fight, even when he had little to gain.
Lakefront Liberal - Tuesday, Feb 17, 09 @ 6:45 pm:
I can't believe both papers actually made a good endorsement! Though my nickname is "Lakefront Liberal" what we DON'T need in congress are more liberal yes-men (or women). What we need are people who will stand up to the monied/powerful interests, which Quigley has no problem doing. And he's liberal/progressive to boot!
I have been a Quigley fan for a long time, but what really sealed it for me was going to a City Club luncheon where he was scheduled to talk about TIFs. There he was telling a room full of corporate types and politicos that TIFs are a slush fund that Mayor Daley uses to reward his cronies. In those words! It's one thing for Fritchey to criticize Blago from behind the shadow of Madigan, but who is out there protecting Quigley when he calls out the Mayor? No one. Against Stroger he at least has a little back up (though very little), but on the TIF thing he is really out there on his own. And he wouldn't have to do it at all, it would be a hell of a lot easier for him to just keep his mouth shut on TIFs, and on county government, but he doesn't.
While Fritchey, Feigenholtz and O'Connor didn't start with name recognition as strong as Quigley, they are all elected officials in the district. And Annunzio and Capparelli both share names with current or former elected officials in the district.
To get Geoghegan's name recognition up to the level of F, F and Q, he'd have to spend a bunch on direct mail, radio, TV or something.
Is Geoghegan up on TV?
Is Geoghegan buying on the radio?
How many campaigns have sent more direct mail than Geoghegan?
Geoghegan getting endorsed by national organizations is nice, but which of those organizations have local chapters that are providing significant numbers of volunteers for Goeghegan?
CNA/National Nurses Organizing Committee?
Teamsters Local 743?
The Greater Chicago Caucus?
Progressive Democrats of America?
And Students for a New American Progress?
Saying Geoghegan has the DFA endorsement sounds less impressive when you get into the details. The local chapter didn't endorse Geoghegan. And the national endorsement also suggested supporting Quigley as well as Geoghegan.
The longstanding progressive organization that endorses, IVI-IPO, went with Fritchey.
I haven't completely tested this, but it sure seems like Wheelan (who sucks on the issues) has more volunteers than Goeghegan.
It's one thing to ask people to support a progressive underdog who might get past a frontrunner who could always slip. But in this case you're asking people to support a progressive in a field with three frontrunners (all of whom are more progressive than the last four Congressmen: Emanuel, Blagojevich, Flanagan and Rostenkowski).
The contrast on the progressive-not progressive scale isn't there. And the possibility of all three frontrunners faltering seems remote.
Quigley is probably something like Russ Feingold. He's willing to get in front of an issue based on the principle of the thing.
Quigley is exceedingly deferential to the Israel lobby, which causes him to lose some progressive.
Fritchey is a talented legislator with progressive instincts. He's not going to get out in front on issues. He's more cautious, like Obama. Also, Fritchey is a blogger and keeps track of what progressives are things.
Feigenholtz will vote right, but I think she possesses mediocre talent and mediocre smarts. I like SEIU, but my read is that they got behind Feigenholtz b/c they wanted to show they could out-muscle the AFL-CIO, which is backing Fritchey.
Wheelan is the worst-case scenario. He's a Neo Liberal who casually disregards the welfare of people who work of a living. Wheelan is a prof. He's also an Israel hawk.
The outsider who might have a chance and has a mix of positions, some progressive, some not so much, is Victor Forys. He's a Polish-American physician who has raised a respectable amount on Act Blue.