Economic Experts Refute House GOP’s Loony Proposal For Violating Standards


The House, where Republicans still hold the majority and will be controlling the direction of the chamber at least until early 2025, has recently passed a proposal that would systematically upend the granting of mortgages with government involvement available through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Even included would be a complete ban on considering the loan recipient’s income in comparison to the size of the mortgage when determining certain fees.

Republicans’ proposal, around which they’ve misrepresented the basic facts of what the federal government has been doing to make residential financing arrangements more accessible, has attracted widespread opposition. To start, it’s important to note that any assertion that prospective borrowers with higher credit scores are paying more to cover those with lower scores is incorrect.

“We are concerned that Congress is attempting to set mortgage pricing fees for loans purchased by the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs),” Nikitra Bailey of the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) said. “This is the role of their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). A return to the former pricing matrix would raise the cost of homeownership and make it more expensive for first-time homebuyers and borrowers of color seeking conventional loans. The bill also fails to advance housing affordability and does not offer a solution for the millions of mortgage-ready consumers who desire and can succeed in homeownership.”

The statement from that expert in the field continued from there, explaining some of the damaging background of the cost changes that federal authorities recently tried to adjust to make them better serve the American population. Republicans were specifically trying to undo some of those recent federal updates. Elsewhere in government, the Federal Housing Finance Agency has also shared an extensive statement from its director that explains the falsity of certain Republican arguments, noting, for instance, that the past pricing system for the disputed costs was not necessarily directly representative of the actual risk connected to any given mortgage in specific terms.