A reader wrote a very interesting response to earlier posts about John Kerry's mortgage on "his half" of his Beacon Hill Louisburg Square mansion. With permission, we reprint it below:

Regarding Thomas Lifson's cogent and insightful article on "Sista Theresa":

Mr. Lifson rightly mentions that Theresa is responsible for the loan which bailed out the Kerry campaign last year, although I have read that the Kerry camp denies this.  The argument seems to be that Kerry only  mortgaged his half of the Boston house, not hers. 

As with so much of what Mr. Kerry putsforward, this is neither exactly truthful,  nor is it to the point.  I have
been in the mortgage business in the Atlanta area for 20 years, and in all that time, I have yet to see an instance when one spouse mortgages half interest in a jointly owned property.  The argument, on its surface is laughable, and no bank or investor would even consider such a ludicrous suggestion, without the written complicity of the other spouse. 

No doubt the reason for this deception by the Kerry camp is to avoid calls for the release of Theresa's tax returns... HOWEVER, the question of equity and collateral is only half the picture. The fact of the matter is that John Kerry on his own simply did NOT qualify for the loan. Kerry's income is not enough to cover the payments at even the most favorable interest rate, never mind such other factors as debt—to—income ratios usually used by even the most liberal mortgage underwriters.  In other words, without a claim on Theresa's income to ensure repayment, John Kerry doen't get the loan.  Mrs. Heinz—Kerry's finances were used to guarantee that loan, the procedes from which went directly to support John Kerry's  floundering presidential campaign.  Her tax returns should be made public... immediately.  Anything less than full disclosure of her returns, and the loan papers as well, would clearly be a violation of federal election law.