Marshall Sanford: “I would say this is a well-intentioned bill; but without the Coburn amendment which corrects a number of fatal flaws, I…”

“I would say this is a well-intentioned bill; but without the Coburn amendment which corrects a number of fatal flaws, I think it is, in fact, fatally flawed. And I would say that for a couple of different reasons. I would say, first of all, if we look at the way the Coburn amendment corrects the bill, it helps us to focus, because as it is now configured with 150 percent of median income the threshold, what that means is we have a worker in Fairfax County, Virginia, making $50,000 or $60,000 subsidized in the purchase of their home by somebody making $12,000 or $18,000 in Yamasee, South Carolina, which is in the neck of the woods where I grew up, where frankly there is not a whole lot of money to go around. So it loses focus on helping those in need. Two, I think it encourages risk. It is very easy to spend somebody else's money; but by moving from 3 percent down to 1 percent, in terms of the amount of your own money you have to have in the deal, you frankly encourage people to, in essence, go out and take options on homes. These are not purchases but options. And I would say of most concern for me is that this bill supposedly is about recruiting and retaining EMS workers, firefighters, teachers, et cetera; but, in fact, it will have the reverse effect.”