Mark Pine

To my mind, the Bible is a poetic document, teaching its lessons in metaphors and parables. I’ve interpreted the instruction of God to the children of Israel regarding his first commandment and the sinfulness of the fathers as a caution on the long lasting effects of doing wrong: Sinfulness can get transferred from parent to child by bad example and by psychological mechanisms, such as identification with the aggressor.

But recent work in neuroscience and epigenetics suggests that a son’s experience of abuse by his father may be incorporated in methyl groups near a gene controlling the levels of corticosteroid stress hormones.

Epigenetics, a vigorous area of biological research, has yielded groundbreaking insights into mechanisms for incorporating changes experienced by an individual organism into its chromosomes and potentially passing those changes to succeeding generations. The most prevalent process is attachment of a methyl group (a carbon atom with a single binding site) to DNA in the chromosomes of a cell, usually at a cytosine unit of the genetic sequence. The change doesn’t affect the sequence itself, but can be passed onto daughter cells via the activity of the methylase enzyme, which replicates methylation patterns following replication of DNA. When methylation affects the DNA of germline cells, methylation patterns may be passed to offspring.

As for inheriting the effects of child abuse, an article in Science this month reports that researchers in Montreal examined the postmortem brains of men who had been abused by their fathers as children and committed suicide as adults. The neuroscientists compared them with brains from other men, who had not been abused but had died suddenly from suicide or other causes. They found increased methylation in the cells of the hippocampuses of the abused men.

The hippocampus is a region of the brain involved in processing emotions and memories, and the methyl groups were found attached at the promoter site of the gene for the glucocorticoid receptor. The gene is involved in controlling stress, since the receptor receives the stress hormone cortisol and initiates negative feedback to damp down secretion of the hormone. But when methyl groups get attached to the promoter, the gene becomes less active in controlling stress. It has been shown in rat studies that this methylation condition results in long-lasting high levels of stress experienced by the animals.

The research suggests that the abused men may have experienced high levels of stress hormones throughout their lives, because the experience caused the methylation of genes in their brains. Thus, methylation may be a mechanism whereby childhood experiences could exert life-long effects.

Although the researchers did not look at whether methylation also affected the genes of their germline cells, the fact that methylation may persist through replication would seem to allow for the possibility that the effects of abuse could last for generations.

So, perhaps the wisdom of the Biblical passage is supported in some unforeseen way not only by psychological mechanisms but also by biological ones.

The strident and nearly unanimous opposition of Republicans to the president’s economic and fiscal programs underscores the razor-sharp divide between Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives. But fundamental to the dispute is more than politics. Divergent visions of the nature of society and the social compact separate the sides.

One group, Democrats and liberals, sees the work of society as a joint endeavor. We all sail in one boat, and we all sink or float together. When the ship sails in smooth waters and makes good headway, all who sail should enjoy and benefit from the progress. But when the vessel encounters storms and troubled waters, all hands must join in the effort to make it through. If in the violent pitching and rolling, a few get thrown overboard and some are injured, we should make efforts to rescue and treat them. Ultimately, the captain is in charge. He and his officers not only guide the ship but also direct and allocate the personnel and the resources, especially in difficult times.

For the other group, Republicans and conservatives, the most relevant metaphor isn’t a ship, but a competitive sport. Society is an arena in which contestants excel or fall short. Some win and some lose. Some teams achieve victory, some teams suffer defeat. Feats of outstanding performance and the breaking of records result from the competitive spirit and the prizes and glories that go to the victors. Without the opportunity to win and rewards of victory, there’s no motivation for players to work hard and do well, and there’s no basis for teamwork. The officials in the competitive area are not captains but referees. When they do their jobs well, they keep players from transgressing the rules, but these authorities and judges don’t get in the game themselves.

For Democrats and liberals and the proponents of the collective view, the outrage provoked during the years of the Bush presidency resulted from the perception that the captain didn’t steer the boat well. The ship ran off course and foundered in storms. The captain was arbitrary and capricious in enforcing the rules. And some of the hands, his friends, were vastly favored, while others not close to him were neglected.

For Republicans and conservatives, the present outrage comes from the view that the referees are taking sides and getting into the game. The winners and the outstanding performers, rather than getting prizes, are being penalized. And those who have fallen short and failed are being helped up and given another chance, while the victors are sidelined.

President Obama’s budget is vast in scope as well as expense. Clearly his view is that the government must now direct a collective effort by American society. He is allocating massive funding of health care, education, new technology, and alternative energy. These efforts are intended to benefit society as a whole, as well as every individual, including the less fortunate ones. He is plotting a new course, and committing enormous resources to changing direction, powering, and accelerating the vessel.

It’s appropriate that the collective spirit and the spirit of all-together have the helm at this time. We have just gone through an era of free and intense competition. But many of the players started cheating and ran off with trophies they didn’t deserve. Tricksters and double-dealers made ill use of other players and knocked some down, who got in their way. Consequently, many teams and players have stopped playing, feeling there’s no reward and lots to lose in continuing. Society as a whole is suffering paralysis.

So at this time, our national leaders, who view our society in the competitive way, should quiet down. In the future, the time for their view will come again. But now our new captain should take charge, and we should help him navigate the new course.

Speaking to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC last evening, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “science, science, science, science” is the key to implementing President Obama’s ambitious new programs in health care and energy—especially in health care. It’s easy to see why: The new budget director Peter Orszag has said our nation’s biggest long-term budget problem is the cost of health care. In the U.S., we pay for too much care that’s costly or ineffective. The World Health Organization rated the U.S. 37th in health care quality and fairness, although we have the most expensive health care system in the world.

So it’s obvious that our country needs scientific research to help us determine what works to promote health and treat disease and what doesn’t. That seems like a no-brainer, no?

Yes, but don’t count on it being easy. Lots of money is made from tests, procedures, and treatments that may not be either helpful or cost-effective and may actually do harm. Three areas of medical practice that need effectiveness research are: prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. The following examples show how some things got off track.

Prevention

Until a few years ago doctors prescribed hormone replacement therapy for women because it relieved symptoms of menopause. But doctors also believed boosting estrogen levels would prevent heart disease. That turned out to be dead wrong. A large clinical trial (the Women’ Health Initiative study) showed hormones increase the risk of breast cancer, heart disease and stroke.

Diagnosis

A few years ago, there were ads on radio, TV, and elsewhere for body scans to detect cancer early. The claim was that patients could avoid the consequences of this terrible disease by getting total body computed tomography (CT) scans, to detect cancer early before symptoms appeared. Of course, the scans were expensive (and profitable for the companies to perform), but they also subjected people to a lot of radiation, which is known to increase the risk of cancer. It was a scam. The FDA has said there’s no evidence that the scans improve treatment of disease or prevent death due to cancer.

Unavoidably, all diagnostic tests suffer from false negative results (missing disease that’s present) and false positives (finding disease where there’s none). The former might allow a serious disease to get worse without being treated, and the latter might result in needless treatment that’s expensive and possibly harmful.

For example, prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer. Many men beyond age 50 get routine yearly PSA tests to detect the cancer. But although men have a 17% lifetime risk of getting prostate cancer, their risk of dying from it is only 3%. This is because many such cancers are very slow growing. So it’s not clear that even if PSA screening leads men to get earlier treatment that it alters the course of the disease or saves many lives. Moreover, prostate biopsies may cause harm, such as infection or incontinence.

Treatment

Maybe U.S. medicine is not the most effective or efficient in the world, but there’s no doubt that in this country, we have the largest number of and the most advanced treatments on the planet. Especially drugs. The problem, though, is that there’s very little research comparing drugs to learn which are the most effective, safe and economical.

In our country, most of the research on drugs is done by the companies that market them and have an interest in showing them effective. Companies must show their new drugs are more effective than inactive placebos before they can put them on the market. But there’s no requirement that they prove them more effective or as effective as other drugs already available. Usually, the most that is done is prove that a new drug is not significantly inferior in comparison to another similar drug.

As a result, many new drugs come on the market for which there’s no good evidence that they offer a significant advantage. Since it costs a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market, this is expensive research, which is paid for by patients or insurers but without any clearly beneficial result. And since companies spend megabucks to advertise and market the new treatments, that also drives up the cost of medicines.

Physicians and Providers

As it is practiced, American medicine is based on the principle that treatment decisions are made between patients and doctors. We like to think that’s the best way. But there’s good reason to think that may not be so. Like all human beings, doctors make mistakes, and sometimes they don’t prescribe the best medicine or actually cause harm. The same is true of the institutions that provide care.

The U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality uses Health Care Report Cards to rate doctors and other providers. So do consumer organizations like Consumers’ Checkbook.

Last December, the American Medical Association published in its journal JAMA a commentary on physician autonomy in making medical decisions. The thrust of it was that medical care needs to be increasingly standardized in order to improve quality and reduce costs. And, therefore, doctors may have to give up some of their cherished freedom.

If it seems that using science to improve the quality and efficiency of health care should be an obvious way to go, there will nevertheless be enormous opposition. Many practitioners and many companies will see effectiveness research as a threat to their income or their bottom line. Their forces will sound the alarm against government regulation to require research and limit unnecessary treatments. They will proclaim themselves in favor of freedom of choice, and they will denounce bureaucracy and socialism.

And they will try to scare Americans into believing that research into health care quality and effectiveness will destroy those very things. We should not believe them. The research must be done.

Even the Republicans lifted themselves up to give the president standing ovations time and again. How could they not join the Democrats—to have remained in their seats would have seemed as though they’re against recovery. (And like nay-saying Gov. Jindal, who opposed the president’s plans, maybe some of them are hoping that he will fail.)

But the vision of America that Obama championed is dramatically different from that of any of his predecessors since Lyndon Johnson. It’s a view of government as expressing the will of the people, acting as the agent of the common good, building a Great Society.

Since Ronald Reagan, the presidents, the politicians, and the people have looked at government as a kind of air-traffic controller. Planes of private enterprise fly the airspace of the nation. Government allocates the air lanes, guides take-offs and landings, and tries to prevent collisions and crashes. But the planes are privately owned, the pilots are captains of industry, and the routes are chosen for profit. The government itself remains aground. Now it’s as though the administration has decided to take to the air as well as control the airspace. Air Force One will plot the course, carry the largest payload of people and goods, and take off and lead the American air fleet. It’s the most significant change of policy since Reagan fired the traffic controllers.

When I was still in high school, President Kennedy inspired the nation with the call to land a man on the moon in 10 years. And we did. The sixties began with the feeling that America could accomplish tremendous feats. The government was the agent of our nation. But the decade ended with division and despair, as our cities were burned, our leaders assassinated, and our young men sent to fight and die in an endless futile war. Inequities and injustices that had been covered up came to the surface and rent the social fabric of our nation.

Obama has come to power in a time of crisis, but it’s also a time when we may have begun to address longstanding problems of racial division, economic disparity, and international policy that have weakened us as a nation. It’s often been said that a great crisis is a great opportunity. To take us forward, Obama has decided to take hold the controls, to use the government to pilot the nation and carry us forward.

I hope we can make the changes of course that we must make to survive and proper as a nation. I hope we can join together and travel to a higher ground. I hope American sees and seeks the land of our destiny, and as we have done before, transport ourselves and lead the world to a better place.

John Tierney—a New York Times columnist and would-be scientist, who decided it was less demanding to write about his discoveries for newspapers than publish them in science journals—poses a question in today’s paper: Are President Obama’s science advisers too partisan and do they stray from pure science when giving him advice? Steven Chu, the Nobelist physicist at the Department of Energy, and John Holdren, another physicist holding the science advisor position, have both been activist advocates for environmental policies.

Scientists (like other human beings) can often be fiercely partisan and political, even when giving scientific advice. No surprise about that.

But does that mean that scientists should avoid partisanship, or enter the political fray only after disclaimers that they are taking sides rather than offering strictly factual and neutral opinions?

Let’s consider two other examples of scientific professionals who base their advice on science: doctors and economists. When giving advice to a patient, should a doctor always say, “I think you may need surgery for this tumor, but other doctors might say you need only chemotherapy.”

Or should an economist always say, “I think we may need more stimulus spending to get out of this recession, but other economists might think we need more tax cuts.”

These two examples portray situations where the average person—or the average political office holder—doesn’t have sufficient understanding of the underlying science to know what to do—or even to evaluate alternative courses of action after hearing explanations. Very often, scientists need to advocate positions and policies. We would not be well served by doctors who don’t give definitive recommendations or by economists who don’t advocate for anti-recession policies.

That doesn’t mean that scientists should use hyperbole or denigration to undercut those who advocate differently.

But although most people do not have the expertise in science to assess complex scientific questions, most of us—and especially politicians—do have the expertise to evaluate people, even scientists, and figure out who goes over the top and off the cliff in pushing particular policies.

President Obama certainly demonstrates sufficient insight into human character to know what kind of scientists he’s selected for these positions. I’m sure he chose these men because he thought they would be forceful advocates for policies he intends to carry out.

Strong advocacy does not make a scientist less of a scientist when s/he works in the public arena. But it does mean—something that all of us should realize without being told—that s/he’s not working in the lab.

Few American institutions are as venerable and as vital as The New York Times. The newspaper isn’t the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States, but the daily publication with its first-rate journalism, has been and continues to be an essential force for keeping those founding documents alive and working in our nation.

So it was with fear and despair that I watched Saturday the Book TV segment on C-Span featuring Michael Wolff, a Vanity Fair reporter and founder of newser.com, who has written The Man Who Owns the News: Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdock. He confidently predicted that Murdock would soon buy and take control of the Grey Lady (a sardonic epithet for The Times). If so, it would be like the Romans imprisoning Peter the Apostle. Or worse: Wolff agreed in response to a question from the audience that Murdock is indeed the Devil of journalism, a man who cares nothing for the noble purpose of the Fourth Estate, but only for the success and profit of the press achieved by whatever means.

About two weeks ago, The Times posted a page of comments of journalism gurus, “Battle Plans for Newspapers”—suggestions for helping newspapers survive. Steven Brill, (founded The American Lawyer magazine, Court TV and Brill’s Content) wrote: “For big or small newspapers and most other forms of quality content, there has never been a business model that was not partly supported by readers paying for it.”

The prevailing model for free content on the web (and everywhere else) is: Eyeballs attracting advertisers and advertisers paying for the content adjacent to ads. I’m a skeptic: This advertising model is nearing exhaustion, there’s just too much of it, people are saturated. I don’t think it has much effect anymore. Watching an ad, I often think: “What are they trying to cover up?” The more they advertise, the more I think: “Wow! That product must be really bad.” I usually click to a different page, remote to a different channel, mute the sound, or use the time to put the dinner dishes in the dishwasher.

Brill is right. The future is in paying to read. Most business savants, I suspect, would think this idea out of touch. People will never pay. But in fact, they do. Cable TV, for example. It’s completely displaced airwaves broadcasting. It offers more channels and better reception. Good news could also demand a price. The Times tried this recently by putting their columnists behind a pay-to-enter doorway. It didn’t work because the company lost too many eyeballs, people who weren’t willing to pay to enter.

Even Murdock’s empire is suffering newspaper problems. The Times is carrying a story today, “Murdoch’s Soft Spot for Print Slows News Corp.” The reporters suggest Murdock’s fondness for hardcopy newsprint is a weakness that is costing his company. The stock price of News Corp has declined two-thirds in the last year. They don’t mention that the price of the NYT Company has plummeted by 80% in the same period.

Here’s a suggestion for a model that might work. It’s one I know, because it’s used in medical journalism. Free content—in the form of abstracts of articles—is provided to browsers via portals at each journal and via the public access database, PubMed, operated by the National Library of Medicine. The content is entirely abstracts of articles, but it is extremely informative, and for most purposes, the abstracts are sufficient for getting the essential content of the complete journal articles. But some inquirers need the whole article. They either subscribe to the complete journal or pay-per-view for the particular content.

The Times and other first-rate news organizations could do the same thing. Put out a free version on the web, consisting of good abstracts of all the articles and opinion. Most online readers would welcome this. Most of them probably don’t want to read the entire piece, and would appreciate the abbreviated free version. The Times would attract even more browsers—it would be kind of a USA Today on The Times’ web site.

But many readers of The Times do want more. I’m one. We could pay for a yearly subscription, or alternatively, a small fee (less than a dollar) for each individual article or column we want to read in full.

CNN crossed over a line last evening. It wasn’t the first time, and I don’t necessarily think it was a bad thing. Here’s what happened: The reporting centered on Obama’s homeowner rescue plan, and of course, much of it detailed what the president intended and how it would all work. Then one reporter went on to give an opposing view: People are angry, he said, or something like that. He explained that prudent homeowners, who weren’t underwater and were keeping their mortgages current, resented others who bought houses they couldn’t afford and were now going to get help from taxpayers.

Here’s what struck me as different. The reporter wasn’t quoting an opinion pole, he was expressing the opinions of a segment of CNN viewers. At another point in the program, AC-360, reporters gave expression to the views of people who wanted help and were glad they might be getting it.

In many different formats, of course, opinions have long been part of mainstream journalism:

• Editorials – generally express the views of the publisher.
• Columnists – journalists give their opinions. Often readers follow their favorite writers, and in this sense the columnists express the views of a segment of the readership, but the opinions remain the columnists’ own.
• Talk radio – The loudmouths of the airwaves. Today, Limbaugh is the most notorious. These call-in programs have given voice to listeners for many decades. In my memory, they seem to have begun with sports radio—mainly guys and a radio-host sports expert discussing teams, players and contests. Nowadays, it’s mostly political talk on the air. This stuff hasn’t usually been considered news reporting.
• Discussion journalism – There’s a lot of this on both radio and TV. It includes high-level talk radio programs, like the Diane Rehm Show, and many TV news segments. The PBS NewsHour, for example, frequently deals with tricky issues by inviting two or more guests with differing viewpoints to discuss a question. The guests give their particular slants, and often align themselves with various groups of viewers. But this kind of thing is usually regarded as straight news, part of presenting facts and issues.
• FoxNews and MSNBC. These two cable channels have become outlets for the two main wings of the America polity: right and left, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat. Fox caters to the right and MSNBC to the left. In assuming these roles, each channel has taken on the function of using TV to express opinions aligned with the segment of the public that chooses to watch. This is a recent development. MSNBC decided to become the anti-Fox and plant it’s flag in the liberal camp less than 5 years ago. In both cases, the anchor and the other reporters express their own views, not the public’s.
• News-Views – This is something new, I think. Last evening, for example, the CNN reporter wasn’t reporting a fact about the public, like a percentage in a public opinion poll, or an event like a demonstration. Approximately, his words were, again: People are angry. He was reporting an emotion, presumably one felt by a segment of the viewers. The reporter was speaking for these people, giving their viewpoint and feeling about the matter.

Although I can’t quote other instances of this kind of thing, it seems to me to be occurring more frequently. In line with this, CNN and other cable news channels have adopted panel formats. To develop a story, the host reporter, such as Cooper, interviews a group of panelists who are chosen because they represent segments of the viewership, such as Republicans, Democrats, African-Americans, Hispanics, Whites, Business, Labor, young people, seniors, etc., etc.

This is different from the kind of panel discussion that occurs on the NewsHour, for example. There panelists change from evening to evening, and although they may speak for segments of the public, they are chosen for their expertise and ability to state and explain the facts.

Panelists on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, however, don’t change much from evening to evening. They are nightly guests who offer opinions on many issues on which they are not experts, although they may be knowledgeable. Their roles seem to be giving expression to the segment of the viewership that they have come to represent and speak for. On CNN, Ed Rollins speaks for Republicans, Roland Martin for Democrats and African-Americans, and David Gergen for independents. And several other panelists serve these functions, as well.

But even the ubiquitous panel discussions on cable news don’t go as far as ostensibly straight news reports that state—not facts—but thoughts and feelings in the minds and hearts of the viewers. This is what that reporter did.

Is it a good thing to do? Is it news?

Although it isn’t news (I’ve called it news-views in this post), I think that within bounds it actually is good. News on cable has been accused of being entertainment rather than reporting. This does often happen, as when cable news programs report a calamity for hours on end, or car-chase down the highway.

But I think it is also clear that people watch to see their own views given expression on TV. That also is a kind of entertainment. But at the same time, it’s a form of public involvement in our polity. That kind of reporting gives the public a more direct role in the political dialogue. In a democracy, I think it is a good thing to provide a way for the public to be involved and understand what is going on. It’s good as long as it’s kept within bounds, doesn’t displace regular news and doesn’t degenerate to demagoguery.

An Australian plant geneticist has developed a new wheat variety that takes advantage of sporadic rainfall to grow in dry climates. The new wheat should do well in that continent’s southern wheat belt, where most rain falls during the mild winter. The scientist, Richard Richards of CSIRO Plant Industry in Canberra, thinks the wheat might also grow well in the North American Great Plains, where the crop is planted late in the Summer to benefit from sporadic showers.

Richards’ success came from crossing a Chinese wheat with large embryos and an Indian variety with large leaves. The large-seed hybrid germinates more quickly and the large leaves shade the soil, preventing evaporation. As bonus the new wheat also has a longer coleoptile, or seed sprout, that penetrates deeper in the soil to get more moisture.

These days, it’s unusual to learn about a major advance in crop development that hasn’t resulted from genetic modification. So I was really pleased to read about this improvement in the latest issue of Science. Developing new varieties using genetic modification seems to be the default position today. Scientists and agribusinesses that push this technology say that the age-old hybridization techniques are too slow and inefficient. Yet it’s undeniable that hybridization is an age-old technology, and that means it has had success for a very long time.

Today, a number of GMO crops are widely farmed. And there doesn’t seem to have been a major ecologic disaster resulting from their introduction. Perhaps some butterflies have had a harder time, and some organic farmers have complained about gene pollution. No catastrophes yet, though. But it’s still a very new technology, and I wonder.

Although I think old-fashioned plant breeding can answer our needs for better varieties of crops, I’m not opposed to creating GMO organisms. I think they may be a good idea for some purposes—as sources of pharmaceuticals, for example. But I am opposed to introducing these organisms without secure containment, so they get released into the environment. Genes are in the business of spreading and making copies of themselves. That’s what makes evolution go. We can be certain that whenever new genes get introduced into an open ecologic space where they’ve never been before, they will find a way to move around and escape.

And that’s why I’m uncomfortable with unrestrained GM technology and unconfined GMOs. Genetic modification is to plant breeding as nuclear energy is to chemical energy. The new technology is orders of magnitude more powerful than the old one. In consequence, it may also be orders of magnitude more disruptive. I’m concerned that it’s a matter of time before some ingenious genetic invention escapes the area of application for which it is intended and spreads widely with disruptive effect to the balance of nature.

We tend to think that people who have no health insurance are down-and-out. But an article in The New York Times Tuesday shows that 30% of them are starting out and just getting on their feet.

Young adults—most often out from under the wings of their parents and dropped from the parents’ health policies because of age—can’t afford to get sick. But of course even healthy young men and women do get sick and have accidents. When they don’t have to go to the hospital, according to the article, they play doctor with themselves by trying to diagnose using online web sites like WebMD. And they sometimes take drugs left over from previous prescriptions or borrow meds from friends.

It’s unconscionable! One diabetic young man mentioned in the article was constantly worried about diabetes-related seizures that might send him to the hospital. He was hoping it wouldn’t happen to him again before he found a job that provides health insurance coverage.

Is this the United States we live in? We can’t afford to make sure our young people have health insurance?? These aren’t unfortunate folks who haven’t made it in life (although we should provide a safety net for those people, too). But the article was writing about the people who are our future, the future of our country. Why are they in this situation—in this country—in this century?

I’m outraged partly because I have two children who’ve been affected by this problem. One of them, indeed, has had difficulty getting health insurance. He solved this problem by deciding to remain a resident of Massachusetts, the only state that guarantees coverage at this time. He was able to continue to live there after finishing college in that state. Thank God. But at his point in pursuing a career, it would be better if he were he able to move around the country.

The news last evening reported that President Obama may be considering Gov. Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas for Secretary of Health and Human Services. She has experience with health care issues and may be able to lead the administration’s initiative in this area. Let’s hope so. Something MUST be done. Soon.

With our economy in a nosedive, many people have lost jobs and can’t afford their mortgage payments. Often through no fault of their own, these people may lose their homes in addition to their livelihood. And many other people bought homes they couldn’t afford because they got caught up in the home price/buying frenzy that got doused in 2007.

There are about 3 million such folks, according to The New York Times today. They are at great risk of foreclosure, if that hasn’t already happened to them. And as they lose their homes, the price of homes continues to fall, exacerbating the slump.

So the plan to help them out, to be announced by the White House today, is critically important. The details became available this morning, and they show that homeowners in trouble will get direct aid to help pay their mortgages and stay in their homes.

The aid starts with the government paying banks and other loan servicers to reduce interest rates on mortgages to homeowners who pay more than 38% of their income. The banks get $1000 for each mortgage they modify to bring the monthly amount below that percent. They also receive up to $1000 a year as long as the borrowers remain current and $500 for finding borrowers and modifying loans before trouble starts. This is real money to motivate the banks to work with their mortgage customers who already are or may soon get in trouble.

For the homeowners, they get real money, too. If they get their bank to modify their interest rate so payments fall below 38%, then the government will add cash to their payments. The amount of cash will effectively reduce their interest rate to 31%. For a homeowner paying 38% on $220,000, this means that the Gov will chip in $400 of the payment—$400 the homeowner won’t have to pay. And if they stay current with their reduced payments, then the Gov will also pay down their mortgage by $1000 per year for five years. That will give homeowners more equity in their homes and increased motivation to stay and pay.

So it looks like the administration is offering real help to those homeowners who have a shot of staying in their home. The plan should to make their homes more affordable. And that should have the effect of reducing the number of homes coming on the market in foreclosure and helping the economy to recover.