25 Comments »
If McCain neglects to hammer these points home over the next few weeks, he’s toast. Obama and his fawning multitudes among the MSM are trying furiously to suggest otherwise - don’t let them get away with it, Johnny Mac.
Comment by Dmac — 9/21/2008 @ 6:51 pm
So the failure of legislation to make it through the GOP Congress is the fault of….wait for it….the Democrats.
Comment by jpe — 9/21/2008 @ 6:54 pm
jpe,
This election is between Obama, who did nothing, and McCain, who tried doing something. And Obama is trying to tie McCain to Bush, who tried doing something.
Comment by Patterico — 9/21/2008 @ 7:00 pm
Yes, jpe. The Senate had this turncoat named Jeffords. Remember him ?
On May 24, 2001, Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party, with which he had always been affiliated, and announced his new status as an independent. Jeffords discussed this decision during his announcement that he was leaving the Republican party. “I will make this change and will caucus with the Democrats for organizational purposes once the conference report on the tax bill is sent to the president. I gave my word to the president that I would not intercept or try to intervene in the signing of that bill”. Jeffords decided to switch when the Senate Republicans had refused to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. [2]
The independent status of Jeffords changed the Senate composition from 50-50 (with a Republican Vice President, Dick Cheney, serving as President of the Senate to break tie votes) to 49 Republicans, 50 Democrats, and one independent. Jeffords promised to vote for Democratic control after being promised a committee chairmanship by Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. He then handed his chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which he had held since 1997, to Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and was given the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which would have been occupied by ranking minority member Harry Reid. Jeffords held this committee chair until the Democrats lost control of the Senate in 2003 following Congressional elections in 2002.
Once Jeffords could no longer block legislation, others stepped in.
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.
Yes, jpe, Democrats, with some Republican pussies, blocked the regulation. Do you know what a filibuster is ?
Comment by Mike K — 9/21/2008 @ 7:11 pm
So the failure of legislation to make it through the GOP Congress is the fault of…
The suspense builds - can “it” comprehend?
….wait for it….
Can “it” actually learn?
Democrats.
Guess not.
Comment by Dmac — 9/21/2008 @ 7:22 pm
jpe-
Comment by MartyH — 9/21/2008 @ 7:29 pm
Why do you think Fannie and Freddie spent all that money lobbying if nor at least to block legislation unfavorable to their interests. They certainly got their money’s worth.
Comment by daleyrocks — 9/21/2008 @ 7:54 pm
One might wonder why Dodd and Obama were #1 and #2 in funds bequeathed to them by Fannie and Freddie. What quid pro quo resulted? And why would
the junior senator from Ill. get such a disporportionate amount in a few short years? Will the media bother to query the Anointed One?
Comment by madmax333 — 9/21/2008 @ 8:02 pm
As I’ve linked to before, Fannie and Freddie aren’t the cause of the problem.
And that link contains others. Here’s one.
You’re trying to score political points. Some context, for your readers
Fannie and Freddie had about as much to with the “explosion of high-risk lending” as they could get away with. We are all fortunate that they couldn’t get away with all that much of it. It is a fact that their market share dropped like a brick in the early years of this century, except of course for years like 2003, when fixed rates dropped to cyclical lows, refis boomed, and GSE market share shot up again, only to plummet in the years following during the purchase boom.
But they didn’t like losing their market share, and they pushed the envelope on credit quality as far as they could inside the constraints of their charter: they got into “near prime” programs (Fannie’s “Expanded Approval,” Freddie’s “A Minus”) that, at the bottom tier, were hard to distinguish from regular old “subprime” except–again–that they were overwhelmingly fixed-rate “non-toxic” loan structures. They got into “documentation relief” in a big way through their automated underwriting systems, offering “low doc” loans that had a few key differences from the really wretched “stated” and “NINA” crap of the last several years, but occasionally the line between the two was rather thin. Again, though, whatever they bought in the low-doc world was overwhelmingly fixed rate (or at least longer-term hybrid amortizing ARMs), lower-LTV, and, of course, back in the day, of “conforming” loan balance, which kept the worst of the outright fraudulent loans out of the pile. Lots of people lied about their income (with or without collusion by their lender) in order to borrow $500,000 to buy an overpriced house in a bubble market. They weren’t borrowing $500,000 from the GSEs.
Furthermore, both GSEs were major culprits in the growth of the mega-lenders. Over the years they were struggling so hard to maintain market share, they were allowing themselves to experience huge concentration risks. As they catered more and more to their “major partners”–Countrywide, Wells Fargo, WaMu, the usual suspects–they helped sustain and worsen the “aggregator” model in which smaller lenders sold loans not to the GSEs but to CFC or WFC, who then sold the loans to the GSEs. In large measure this was a function of pricing: the aggregators got the best pricing from the GSEs–the lowest guarantee fees, the best execution options–making it more attractive for a number of reasons for small lenders to sell to the aggregators.
I think it was his connection to ACORN, who was pushing all of those liar loans into the ghetto.
Again: persepctive.
Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.
He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”
The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.
Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration.
Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.
“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.
When Hank Paulson joined the administration as Treasury secretary in 2006 he sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to explore the possibility of reaching a compromise, but to no avail.
http://patterico.com/2008/09/21/repu...ts-opposed-it/
Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! 
Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?
Linear Mode
