The lead editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post today both focus on the principal legislative solution to the nation's housing crisis -- the House-passed $1.7 billion plan to provide $300 billion in mortgage refinance guarantees, designed by Financial Services Committee chair Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). The Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to mark up a similar bill tomorrow. The Times editorial, Teeing Up the Next Mortgage Bust, describes the double-headed hydra that is the housing crisis: home "price declines provoke foreclosures, which provoke more price declines. And... there is an entirely different category of risky loans whose impact has yet to be felt — loans made to creditworthy borrowers but with tricky terms and interest rates that will start climbing next year." The government has not acted, almost a year into the crisis now. Yet the Senate Banking Committee goes on talking. It has failed as yet to produce a bill to aid borrowers at risk of foreclosure, with the panel's ranking Republican, Richard Shelby of Alabama, raising objections. In the House, a foreclosure aid measure passed recently, but with the support of only 39 Republicans. The White House has yet to articulate a coherent way forward, sowing confusion and delay... There's a way to avert calamity. It's called foreclosure prevention. There is no excuse for delay. Looking at the Post editorial, Holes in the Roof, one sees sown confusion. Citing the $1.7 billion five-year cost of the Frank bill, even though "preventing further damage to the economy is a valid reason to consider a bailout," the editorial concludes: "we have our doubts. Economists forecast about 1.4 million foreclosures this year. The CBO estimates that Mr. Frank's bill would help about 100,000 borrowers a year over five years -- some of whom would eventually default again... In terms of systemic risk avoided, the bill may be oversold. Mr. Frank's program is voluntary... In the Senate, Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who backs the concept, is negotiating with ranking Republican Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), a skeptic. Only opponents of the Frank plan term it a bailout, because it's not. It's a voluntary program, a point the editorial holds against the plan. The Post cites the CBO estimate that the plan would forestall over a third of the foreclosures forecast this year. Are we supposed to reject it as inadequate? What does the Post suggest as an alternative? Finally, calling Sen. Shelby -- who engineered a boycott of last week's mark up that thwarted a Banking Committee quorum -- a "skeptic" is like saying President Bush has some misgivings about appeasing terrorists. What are the chances that Congress, in an election year, will indulge whatever ideological "skepticism" it might have about government action to prevent foreclosures? As Rep. Steven LaTourette☼ (R-OH), told the Post on May 8, What's offensive is some of the rhetoric. They say it rewards speculators. No, it doesn't. It's limited to homeowners. They say it's a $300 billion bailout. No, it's not. It costs $1.7 billion. Would I have written the bill the way Chairman Frank did? No, but we're not in charge anymore ... People are expecting us to do something. Apparently, the paper's editorial board did not hear -- or did not heed -- Rep. LaTourette's words.