"Too Little, Too Late, and Too Voluntary"

That's how the NY Times editorial page described the administration's rescue plan for subprime mortgages. Paul Krugman has an excellent analysis in today's paper explaining why this might be the case. The plan does not really rescue very many people who were victims of predatory lending practices, but what it does protect are lenders. Krugman writes:

The Hope Now Alliance plan is entirely focused on reducing investor losses. Any minor relief it might provide to troubled borrowers is clearly incidental. And it is does nothing for the victims of predatory lending.
snip
Relief is restricted to borrowers whose mortgage debt is at least 97 percent of the house’s value — which means that in many, perhaps most, cases those who get debt relief will be borrowers who owe more than their house is worth. These people would be nearly as well off in financial terms if they simply walked away.

I see that "walking away" may become the the smart choice instead of the last resort. How's that for a plan?