The House wisely approved the financial market rescue plan. Though no one wanted to do this and there were many concerns about the bailout plan, the country and the world are facing a credit crisis that required immediate action. This isn’t about bailing out Wall Street fat cats; it’s about rescuing a credit system that is essential to Main Street business and ultimately all Americans. Once again, Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Lenexa, was the only member of the Kansas delegation to vote for the bill, this time putting Reps. Todd Tiahrt, Jerry Moran and Nancy Boyda on the losing side.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
83 Comments
House wise to approve bailout
——–
Bullsh*t! Now I have a case of the red a$$!
“…that is essential to Main Street business…”
Ah, there it is again.
I bet it wont stop the WE editorial board from endorsing toddly…
They added about 100 billion to the bill in garbage!
I wish I could waltz into Pelosi’s office and kick her trash can over, then back hand her.
Then repeat those actions 262 times.
The House wisely approved the financial market rescue plan.
Only a brain dead moron would make a statement like that. What a bafoon.
I hope to never hear America referred to as a Free country.
I will point to this day and shed a tear.
America is now a full-blown socialist country.
I apologize to our fore fathers that died to give us a republic.
We have let them down.
The Democrat Party caused this problem, by forcing lenders to make bad loans.
Lenders were threatened with lawsuits, and even with criminal prosecution if they did not lend to poor people.
Liberal activists, like Obama and ACORN, used the Community Reinvestment Act to take lenders to court.
ACORN blocked bank drive through lanes, in order to protest when loans were declined.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gave huge campaign gifts to Obama, and other Democrats.
The Democrats then protected Fannie and Freddie from the Republicans, who wanted to regulate Fannie and Freddie.
So…does this mean Wall Street will NOT shoot that poor kitten?
My rep played it right…
Rogers Votes No on $700 Billion Wall Street Giveaway
http://mikerogers.house.gov/newsroom.aspx?A=436
Great… 700 billion in monopoly money for those who already blew their monopoly money.
Franklin,
You neocon pathetic shill. You’ll still take that elephant c0{k up your @ss even though it now represents socialism.
You ignorant s1ut. Quit swallowing it. Spit it out once in a while and you may actually have an original thought.
Look at the market, it is going down….
“ooh ooh, take the money and run!”
Welcome to the USA – Union of Socialist Americans. Welcome, comrads, welcome.
Interview by Bill OReilly and Barney Frank – a real slug fest. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bijtBkKQwY8
This is what 837 billion buys you
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/market/home.aspx
Democrats CAUSED this problem.
Democrats should take the political risks to fix the problem.
http://www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace
The market would’ve crashed and burned today if todd had his way!
Phantom
Posted October 3, 2008 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
The market would’ve crashed and burned today if todd had his way!
——
Check the ticker…
Dow Jones Industrial
10428.69 and sinking…continue tomorrow…
The democrats are responsible for this. They insisted that the lenders give loans to those who couldn’t pay. These people lived in nice houses for months and then would move after about a year without paying for it. On top of that the democrats in the white house like Dodd and Obama were getting rich off of it. Now, you and I, the middle class are going to have to pay for the rich getting richer and the poor getting something for nothing.
How can liberal democrats still condone such action. It has to be because they are the rich, who got richer or the poor who got freebies. Or, they are so brainwashed that they can’t see that they are the ones who are going to pay for it right along with the other middle class who are conservatives and republicans.
This is not a case of republicans or democrats losing. It is a case of the middle class losing. And you are it.
btw- the democrat leadership is getting away with raping the American people and it’s because the democrats and Obama are knee dip in it. If these were republicans, the would have taken down these companies and those involved.
*into*
Franklin,
You ignorant s1ut. The problem goes back to the 70’s. To try to pin this on eone party just continues to show what a neocon @ss you are.
The NeoCons just voted us into socialism. Keep that party banner going though comrad. Ignorant.
Union of Socialist Americans.
danke
Jimmeh did it!
Jimmeh the Carter!
Jimmeh with his Readjustment Act!
It’s Jimmeh’s fault!
It is everyone’s fault. Both parties kept a blind eye and our domb @sses kept voting them in office.
To try to place partisan blame just proves what an ignorant shill you are.
I think Sol is like that cartoon where he crosses his arms and points opposite direction to affix blame.
Must be nice to be independent and with out sin.
:D
Are you that ignorant Regular? Did you not read the FIRST line?
It is everyone’s fault.
How bout this one…
our dumb @sses kept voting them in office.
SolDevVB
Posted October 3, 2008 at 2:27 pm | Permalink
Are you that ignorant Regular? Did you not read the FIRST line?
It is everyone’s fault.
=========================
So, the person born in 1999 is at fault as well?
Just what do you mean by everyone?
Was the head of the Agriculture Department in 1988 at fault?
Can we blame him as well?
How about the House of Representatives Chaplain?
Should we bend him over and spank him?
Then there is that White House Chef.
No doubt the Chef had done some insider trading on commodities, perhaps pork? :D
Since I live in Kansas, am I at fault for the California Democrats being voted in?
Let’s see, is the Chairman on the Congressional Committees and Sub Committees.
I bet we can tag the Sub Committee and Early Childhood Elementary Education and Secondary Education as well.
How about the SubCommitte on Africa and Global Health?
or
Can we blame on the committees that were charged with oversight on financial affairs and banking?
Hmmm?
Oh, I gotta whole lotta more. Want any of this?
:D
Then there is that White House Chef.
—–
Now that guy was a jackass!
Sure. Anyone who voted. Tardo.
Why are they wise to have signed this? It really doesn’t seem to have affected the Stock Market after it was signed. All it did was increase the handouts (with big pork items) by another 150 billion bucks.
I really find it interesting in how they added a carbon tax to businesses in this. Nothing like sticking it to the public because that will be where the money comes from to pay this. What does this have to do with credit issues?
And to think the same government that allowed this mess to happen (forget the Bush and Congressional involvement here) is the one who will be incontrol of your next home loan.
#
SolDevVB
Posted October 3, 2008 at 2:44 pm | Permalink
Sure. Anyone who voted. Tardo.
———————
That’s El Tardo to you Mister.
ANTI is El Freako.
And don’t ever forget that! :D
I think weblog editors ought to have a once weekly thread ‘meet the public’ thread for an invitation to a candidate to come here and defend themselves. (Probably wouldn’t get any takers)
Regular
Posted October 3, 2008 at 2:47 pm | Permalink
#
SolDevVB
Posted October 3, 2008 at 2:44 pm | Permalink
Sure. Anyone who voted. Tardo.
———————
That’s El Tardo to you Mister.
ANTI is El Freako.
And don’t ever forget that! :D
—====—===—
Der Freaken, thank you very much!
Reg, you actually liked the White House Chef? Jeepers!…..that’s right, I said Jeepers!
DOW 10345.77 -137.08
NSDQ 1952.18 -24.54
NYSE 7096.95 -58.46
S&P 500 1100.31 -13.97
AMEX 1757.75 -4.69
RUS 2K 622.62 -15.05
Crude Oil 93.91 -0.06
Well the news of the bailout or rape, which every you want to call it, didn’t help the markets today oddly…..Hey look, oil is cheaper.
#
ANTI
Posted October 3, 2008 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
Reg, you actually liked the White House Chef? Jeepers!…..that’s right, I said Jeepers!
——————–
Vile inter-species fornicator!
And give me back my left-handed cigar lighter!
?que?
And give me back my left-handed cigar lighter!
======
Only when I get my board stretcher from you!!!
#
ANTI
Posted October 3, 2008 at 3:27 pm | Permalink
?que?
————-
Sorry, thought you were Chas for a second.
The German accent fooled me. :)
#
ANTI
Posted October 3, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Permalink
And give me back my left-handed cigar lighter!
======
Only when I get my board stretcher from you!!!
————–
That was a board stretcher?
Dang, I need to wipe it down first, may take some time, stains and all that…
Greed and commerce made this problem.
Our system is fundamentally flawed. Having a roof over your head should not eat up most of your earnings in a week to rent or most of your earnings in a life to own.
I’d like to see the government emulate habitat for humanity with the assets we now collectively own. Dispense the houses at lowered value with the promise of sweat equity improvements and future reimbursement to the government.
There was no GOOD way to address this mess that greed made. But with so many lemons, there is still the opportunity for lemonade.
Chas is shy since being called out on his many names…and lies….I bet in a few weeks he will be back to throwing feces at the walls of his cage.
I though Chas was Samoan or Indian- Welcome to Dell Support, not Indian How.
HEHEHE HAHAHA
The American people are drug addicts.
Inflatable currency which can easily be debased to foment the temporary illusion of growth in wealth is the drug.
The Federal government in charge of the imaginary printing presses issue limitless credit (debt) is the drug dealer.
What happens when the drug addict runs out of supply (ie uncontrolled debt)? Does he use it as an opportunity to get off of it for good? Or does he go back to the drug dealer for his quick fix?
Sadly the later.
However, The American people are losing real tangible financial freedom by entrusting the value of their currency with the Fed. The high from easy credit, like an enslaving drug, is too good to get off.
“The borrower shall be slave to the lender”
Hey people, We are going to see a brief period of deflation when all asset values decline. It’s already happening. this will come to a head and merge into period of rapid and painful inflation.
As companies stop planting crops, stop exploring for more energy, stop mining precious metals, cut back from producing anything since everything is declining in value due to the run to safety (ironically the dollar), there will soon come the realization that with all the dollars created in the past year and in the future (more interest rate cuts ahead) that the dollar is not a safe place to hide.
The dollar will then start to slide. The first hint of such will prompt a rush back into commidities only to find severe shortages (due to the preceding period of deflation). This will cause the price of those commodities to shoot to the moon.
Hello Inflation. Good bye Wealth.
I see McCain had no problem voting for the extra $100 billion in earmarks. It’s pathetic that in such a “national crisis” that members of Congress have to be bribed with pork barrel spending to resolve this crisis.
So nice to know that the beggars receiving the bailout made demands about what they wanted. As with CEOs they get paid when they do well and they get paid when they do lousy but regardless the working people have to foot the bill. Any demand that those who caused the problem, or that the wealthy should pay for the problem is called class warfare. But when the middle and working class has to bail them out it’s called “economic stimulus”.
Politicians must love pork bills. Something for everybody. Just pay your taxes and we will wipe your bottom for you. I do not want wall street to fall flat on it’s face. I have stocks and the lower it goes the less money I will have to pay the non wage earners. Don’t put all the blame on wall street.
“This bill provides no assurance that we will not be faced with this financial crisis again because it falls short in reforming the underlying problems, like anti-regulation fanatics like me.”
- Todd Tiahrt (with this writer’s embellishment added to provide additional truthiness) on his vote to let the econmony sink further into recession because he’s too afraid he’ll lose his job if he does the brave and right thing.
The economy will do it anyway. But try to wish it away all you care to.
It was a power grab using the inevitable as the excuse. Nothing more. Sleep on it, let it soak in.
Not unlike 9-11.
Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest
Friday, October 03, 2008
By Bill Sammon
WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.
So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.
Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank’s relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.
Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.
“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. “He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?
“If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have – or at least what’s not in the stock market – that this would be considered germane,” added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. “But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard.”
A top GOP House aide agreed.
“C’mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?” the aide told FOX News. “No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank’s political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley’s wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain’s wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation’s housing and banking laws.”
Frank’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.
“I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus,” Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. “On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover.”
The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”
Critics say such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.
Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.
Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.
“I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Clinton said recently.
Bill Sammon is FOX News’ Washington Deputy Managing Editor.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html
Pelosi paa lease! Did you hear her? “Well we made the most of a bad bill from the president.”
Political cover. Period.
A bunch of blame casters.
If the Bush Plan sucked – why didn’t you re-rewrite your own? You are the leader (HA-HA-HO-HO).
Bush should veto it, just to make you squirm as you pass it again.
And the American Congress has just voted to spend our way to prosperity! Idiots. Vote em all out.
The markets are driven by fear or confidence in the American economy. Not by an influx of worthless money for a government.
And right now there is still fear and NO confidence in the American economy – and even less in both the congress and president. Investors are not the stupid sheep.
And the market reflected that today. Financially wise people know better. Maybe a temporary bump, like the Economic Stimulus Package is possible.
But in the long run: America is broke. And I’d say not just economically.
Wise? No. They took the easy way out. They threw more money at a problem, hoping – no some openly said PRAYING the problem will go away.
Better start buying seeds and ammunition. This is NOT over.
Congress’ message to the people re the bail out: Bend over and spread ‘em
“Democrats CAUSED this problem.
Democrats should take the political risks to fix the problem.”
Amazes me how some just choose to wallow in their ignorance…I’m embarassed for you Franklin.
They did get alternative energy tax breaks in the bill. (HA-HA-HO-HO)
Kucinich thought the bill sucked. That’s why he voted against it twice. :)
As “kooky” as you think Kucinich is, he’s on target with most everything he stands for. Most importantly, the people (although, his gun control positions pizz me off).
So what’s your point? Trying to be funny? This country is gone, because insane people like to live in a dream and play dress up. Things are not left and right in the big wide world. And thanks to you dolt’s that perpetuate the lie of “dems and “cons” we are right where we’re supposed to be. You spent all of your time legislating gay-rights and prayer in school that you lost sight of the big picture. All of this time the elite have our stupid, Jerry Springer of a nation chasing our tails on arguments that WILL NEVER BE SOLVED while they have their way with things that matter. Like our financial existence. So you lefty’s keep blamin’ the right and you righty’s do like-wise. Keep chasin’ those tails and pretty soon you’ll bear your fruits.
Good luck, you’ll need it.
Amazes me how some just choose to wallow in their ignorance…
NEW YORK TIMES
September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990’s. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
Amazes me how some just choose to wallow in their ignorance…
NEW YORK TIMES
September 11, 2003
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
”There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.
The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.
After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
”The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,” Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ”We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,” the independent agency that now regulates the companies.
”These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,” he added.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.
At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.
Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration’s package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company’s mission.
After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
”We welcome the administration’s approach outlined today,” Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company’s 18 board members.
Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.
Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ”responsible proposal.”
The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.
Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.
”The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”
Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.
Amazes me how some just choose to wallow in their ignorance…
Wall Street Journal:
What They Said About Fan and Fred Article
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there’s a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .
AP
Clockwise from top left: Sen. Thomas Carper, Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Robert Bennett, Rep. Maxine Waters, Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Charles Schumer.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:
Secretary Martinez, if it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?
* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:
Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .
* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:
Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we would be here in the first place.
Fannie Mayhem: A History
A compendium of The Wall Street Journal’s recent editorial coverage of Fannie and Freddie.
And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. . .
Ofheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn’t about the agency’s engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers.
Brian Carney of the Editorial Board on the hearings Congresspeople don’t want to remember. (Oct. 2)
This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. . . .
Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week’s hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .
Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?
Mr. Raines?
Mr. Raines: No, sir.
Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?
Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .
Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .
Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission. And I don’t think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don’t believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.
Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are.
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:
Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we’re trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we’re trying to avert?
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator.
What we’re trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . . .
Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.): [T]he federal government has [an] ambiguous relationship with the GSEs. And how do we actually get rid of that ambiguity is a complicated, tricky thing. I don’t know how we do it.
I mean, you’ve alluded to it a little bit, but how do we define the relationship? It’s important, is it not?
Mr. Greenspan: Yes. Of all the issues that have been discussed today, I think that is the most difficult one. Because you cannot have, in a rational government or a rational society, two fundamentally different views as to what will happen under a certain event. Because it invites crisis, and it invites instability. . .
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don’t want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that’s been done here. And that shouldn’t be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:
Sen. Schumer: I’ll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don’t think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don’t undo Fannie and Freddie.
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:
Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don’t overreact.
I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let’s not do nothing, and at the same time, let’s not overreact. . .
Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, “Let’s dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie,” when that is not what’s called for as a result of what’s happened here. . . .
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we’re dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of — the best we can say is, “It’s no Enron.” Now, that’s a hell of a high standard.
Amazes me how some just choose to wallow in their ignorance…
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there’s a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .
AP
Clockwise from top left: Sen. Thomas Carper, Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Robert Bennett, Rep. Maxine Waters, Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Charles Schumer.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:
Secretary Martinez, if it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?
* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:
Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .
* * *
House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:
Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we would be here in the first place.
Fannie Mayhem: A History
A compendium of The Wall Street Journal’s recent editorial coverage of Fannie and Freddie.
And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. . .
Ofheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn’t about the agency’s engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers.
Brian Carney of the Editorial Board on the hearings Congresspeople don’t want to remember. (Oct. 2)
This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. . . .
Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week’s hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .
Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?
Mr. Raines?
Mr. Raines: No, sir.
Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?
Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .
Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .
Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission. And I don’t think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don’t believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.
Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are.
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:
Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we’re trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we’re trying to avert?
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator.
What we’re trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . . .
Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.): [T]he federal government has [an] ambiguous relationship with the GSEs. And how do we actually get rid of that ambiguity is a complicated, tricky thing. I don’t know how we do it.
I mean, you’ve alluded to it a little bit, but how do we define the relationship? It’s important, is it not?
Mr. Greenspan: Yes. Of all the issues that have been discussed today, I think that is the most difficult one. Because you cannot have, in a rational government or a rational society, two fundamentally different views as to what will happen under a certain event. Because it invites crisis, and it invites instability. . .
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don’t want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that’s been done here. And that shouldn’t be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:
Sen. Schumer: I’ll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don’t think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don’t undo Fannie and Freddie.
* * *
Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:
Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don’t overreact.
I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let’s not do nothing, and at the same time, let’s not overreact. . .
Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, “Let’s dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie,” when that is not what’s called for as a result of what’s happened here. . . .
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we’re dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of — the best we can say is, “It’s no Enron.” Now
Sorry for the long posts, but I didn’t want Mary Caruso to have to keep wallowing.
couldn’t just post a link could I?
Mary_Caruso
Posted October 3, 2008 at 7:53 pm | Permalink
Amazes me how some just choose to wallow in their ignorance…I’m embarassed for you Franklin.
How the Stock Market Works:
Once upon a time in a place overrun with monkeys, a man appeared and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each.
The villagers, seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest, and started catching them. The man bought thousands at $10 and as supply started to diminish, they became harder to catch, so the villagers stopped their effort.
The man then announced that he would now pay $20 for each one. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again. But soon the supply diminished even further and they were ever harder to catch, so people started going back to their farms and forgot about monkey catching. The man increased his price to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so sparse that it was an effort to even see a monkey, much less catch one.
The man now announced that he would buy monkeys for $50! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now buy on his behalf.
While the man was away the assistant told the villagers. “Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has bought. I will sell them to you at $35 each and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each.”
The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the monkeys. They never saw the man nor his assistant again and once again there were monkeys everywhere.
Now you have a better understanding of how the stock market works.
Now they have thrown all OUR money out to others, Arnold is holding his hand out for a big handful of his own for California. I am sure Michigan and New York will be close behind him. I wonder if the government will allow me to keep any of my own money to take care of my family on my own.
Mary_Caruso
“Democrats CAUSED this problem.
Democrats should take the political risks to fix the problem.”
Finally you said something I completely agree with.
But getting a demon crat to admit the truth is harder than nailing jello to a tree.
The real problem with our financial system is that it has grown so complex that even the experts are wrong more often than not. Economic forecasters have assumed the dark blue mantle with stars and crescent moons worn by Voodoo Priests, Gypsy fortune-tellers and Meteorologists. Not exactly a science. And yet these are the people we go to when we need to invest a bit for our futures. Is it any wonder that we sometimes lose our shirts?
It’s also grown so arcane that it’s easy to scam and impossible to regulate even when the regulators try, which they haven’t lately.
If those trends continue, and the economic crisis deepens, as it appears to be doing, most of us will be back in a barter system before long, which we will then complicate over a period in time into another crisis. The business cycle has screwed itself royally!
Anyone else think a Second American Revolution is called for?
Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae’s accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, ‘ Raines, who long defended the company’s accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn’t proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that ‘mistakes were made’ and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicat e the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its managementin the wake of findings that the company’s books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years.’ Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a ‘golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ . The Government noted, ‘The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner.’ These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
Tim Howard – Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard ‘was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a ’stable pattern of earnings’ at Fannie. In everyday English – he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determi ned that, ‘Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,’
On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant’s income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company’s board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Howard’s Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson – A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you’ll see some interesting things about Johnson.Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson’s 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million.’ Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.
Johnson’s Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor
TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama’s Vice P residential Search Committee
IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS – HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE – THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street?
I wonder if it will ever catch up to the democrats for always supporting bush and carrying his water. Hell, the REPUBLICANS wont even do THAT anymore!
But the ever faithful democrats continue to serve King George.
Up is down and black is white.
And the sheeple sleep….
It’s a great day to stop by the Obama Headquaters and pick up yard signs, bumper stickers, lapel pins and literature.
Obama / Biden Election Headquarters
1725 Douglas
Wichita, KS
316.262.7534
Or at the Democratic Party HQ at
1064 N Waco
“Private enterprise is viewed by some as a predatory tiger, to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow, to be milked. Not enough look upon it as a heathy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon” Winston S.
Churchill
WOW!!! What a statement by Alec Baldwin about this mess! Who would that thought it? Watch the video on this http://tinyurl.com/3ldnbz
Watch this, it explains it well.
A ‘got’a watch’!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=exxVZTKq1vA
And here is a non-political short presentation which will enable anyone to easily understand the financial crises which resulted from deregulation and easing credit standards. This is non-political, although my opening was not:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2190705/CDO-Powerpoint-SubPrime-Primer?query2=subprime%20primer%20.ppt
I like this video, it explains how our social engineers in Congress forced lenders to make bad loans:
http://www.youtube.com/TheMouthPeace
“WASHINGTON — Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.
So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions.
Now that Fannie Mae is at the epicenter of a financial meltdown that threatens the U.S. economy, some are raising new questions about Frank’s relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie’s assistant director for product initiatives. Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie.
Both Frank and Moses assured the Wall Street Journal in 1992 that they took pains to avoid any conflicts of interest. Critics, however, remain skeptical.
“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute. “He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?
“If this had been his ex-wife and he was Republican, I would bet every penny I have – or at least what’s not in the stock market – that this would be considered germane,” added Gainor, a T. Boone Pickens Fellow. “But everybody wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard.”
A top GOP House aide agreed.
“C’mon, he writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws?” the aide told FOX News. “No media ever takes note? Imagine what would happen if Frank’s political affiliation was R instead of D? Imagine what the media would say if [GOP former] Chairman [Mike] Oxley’s wife or [GOP presidential nominee John] McCain’s wife was a top exec at Fannie for a decade while they wrote the nation’s housing and banking laws.”
Frank’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.
“I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus,” Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. “On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover.”
The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”
Critics say such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.
Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, the year Moses was hired by Fannie, the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.
Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.
“I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Clinton said recently.”
Bill Sammon is FOX News’ Washington Deputy Managing Editor.
I completely liked this blog