Anyone who underwrites a mortgage which doesn't meet minimum underwriting rules would have to retain at least 5% economic interest in the trust.
All of their proposals are variations on the ideas in the Democratic bill, as opposed to my ideas. In the grand scheme of things, I cannot see why the differences between the Democratic proposals and the Republican proposals are worth a filibuster. Of course, by the same token, it would make a ton of sense for the Democrats to just compromise--except that would actually result in the passage of a bill, which is less politically attractive than creating a huge fight over minor differences. Barf.
This relates to the question of whether the Tea Party movement can accomplish anything. Once they come to Washington, will the politicians that the Tea Party elects really be much different?
Ultimately, a lot of power in Washington is held by Insiders. That includes the permanent bureaucracy and lobbyists. Can an Outsider with an ideological agenda overcome the Insiders? As long as you are not trying to do something like get rid of sugar quotas, lobbyists are not too much of a problem. You can work with them, buy them off, etc.
But the bureaucracy is tougher. If they love your agenda to begin with, fine. The EPA will be only to happy to regulate carbon dioxide, with or without legislative authority, if that's what the President wants.
But when the bureaucracy is against you, where do you start? You vote Republican hoping to abolish the Department of Education, and you end up with No Child Left Behind.
It's very hard to beat the Insiders at their own game. That's why financial reform and health care reform are turning out to be status-quo reinforcement mechanisms.