First things, first. Thank you for your service to our country. Now on to business.

Here is the first statement I found inconsistent with your reply: “…but what other program's funding should be cut or whose taxes could be raised to pay for it?” With an Administration and Congress which have only paid lip service to a balanced budget, this statement makes little sense if you believe there is no substance to the requested subsidy.

Then you added: “Everyone wants the government to fund programs that benefit them, but they don't want to pay taxes to support others’ programs.” Again I do not understand how this statement is consistent with your reply.

I’m sure you believe your statements are consistent with little likelihood for the need of the requested subsidy. I just don’t see how.

Finally, if you really do not believe the subsidy has any merit, why make disparaging remarks about the likelihood of passage. In this situation, our leaders need our wholehearted support not our snide comments.

Nice of you to imply that I am a full time commentator.

As to whether I am a veteran, the answer is yes — on both counts. (I did serve in the military, and I have 32 years of mortgage experience, including 20 years since I originated my first HECM.)

Finally, I'm too busy originating loans and running my business to be a full-time commentator on this message board.

Unless you are convinced that 1) the OMB numbers are right, 2) somehow FHA has no control over its accounting system, or 3) FHA is deviously accounting for the HECM program, you are attempting to divide our industry and defeat an attempt by our leaders to get Congress to approve a simple $250 million bookkeeping entry.

I do not have the patience or expertise to defend FHA on accounting matters. I have far too much respect for the staff at HUD to believe FHA has any significant fundamental problems in accounting for the HECM program. Unlike Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, there is little, if any, incentive to do such a thing. I do not believe you are promoting that position, although you can quickly convince me otherwise.

What you are promoting is that the OMB projected budget numbers for the fiscal year ending 9/30/2011 are right. If you are not, then why make this fiscally conservative argument? I consider myself a fiscal conservative but believe as a practical, prudent, and politically expedient matter, we need to support the subsidy. The $250 million will not be used, unless after all of the horrendous changes that the provision is proposing to HECM MIP and PLFs, there will be net losses of more than $250 million starting 5, 7, 10 years down the road that need to be covered.

You claim to be a vet in this industry so, therefore, you leave me no other conclusion than you fully support the OMB projection and home appreciation rates. The question I have is why?

If somehow you got carried away with your conservatism, you owe the industry an apology. Yes, I do not believe there is much of a chance to get the subsidy but why shouldn’t we at least try by putting our best efforts forward. I hold out absolutely no hope of convincing OMB that they are wrong and must change their numbers before the HUD appropriations bill is voted on. Supporting the subsidy seems to be the only way to keep the program with about the same PLFs during the next fiscal year.

I look forward to your reply.

Everyone wants the government to fund programs that benefit them, but they don't want to pay taxes to support others' programs.

Which government officials or Congressmen specifically are talking about historical HECM losses? The situation is far worse. Their talk is based on low ball PROJECTED home appreciation rates that may or may not be reasonably accurate. Worse they talk as if the results are historically correct!!! However, the “results” are nothing more than projections.