Fatal Flaws Of The Wall Street Bailout Bill

The Dems are at it again and this time they have to complicity of several Republicans. The current financial reform bill before the Senate (S. 3217) is supposed to make bailouts and financial crises a thing of the past. Unfortunately, it will do the exact opposite.

Writing for the Heritage Foundation, James L. Gattuso notes the following flaws:

Creates a protected class of “too big to fail” firms. Section 113 of the bill establishes a “Financial Stability Oversight Council,” charged with identifying firms that would “pose a threat to the financial security of the United States if they encounter “material financial distress.” These firms would be subject to enhanced regulation. However, such a designation would also signal to the marketplace that these firms are too important to be allowed to fail and, perversely, allow them to take on undue risk. As American Enterprise Institute scholar Peter Wallison wrote, “Designating large non-bank financial companies as too big to fail will be like creating Fannies and Freddies in every area of the economy.”[1] Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The bill, in Section 203(b), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds is “in danger of default” and whose failure would have “serious adverse effects on financial stability.” This determination is subject to review in the courts only on a “substantial evidence” standard of review, meaning that the seizure must be upheld if the government produces any evidence in favor of its action. This makes reversal extremely difficult. Creates permanent bailout authority. Section 204 of the bill authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to “make available … funds for the orderly liquidation of [a] covered financial institution.” Although no funds could be provided to compensate a firm’s shareholders, the firm’s other creditors would be eligible for a cash bailout. The situation is much like the scheme implemented for AIG in 2008, in which the largest beneficiaries were not stockholders but rather other creditors, such as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs[2]—hardly a model to be emulated. Establishes a $50 billion fund to pay for bailouts. Funding for bailouts is to come from a $50 billion “Orderly Resolution Fund” created within the U.S. Treasury in Section 210(n)(1), funded by taxes on financial firms. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ultimate cost of bank taxes will fall on the customers, employees, and investors of each firm.[3] Opens a “line of credit” to the Treasury for additional government funding. Under Section 210(n)(9), the FDIC is effectively granted a line of credit to the Treasury Department that is secured by the value of failing firms in its control, providing another taxpayer financial support. Authorizes regulators to guarantee the debt of solvent banks. Bailout authority is not limited to debt of failing institutions. Under Section 1155, the FDIC is authorized to guarantee the debt of “solvent depository institutions” if regulators declare that a liquidity crisis (“event”) exists. Limits financial choices of American consumers. The bill contains a new “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection” with broad powers to limit what financial products and services can be offered to consumers. The intended purpose is to protect consumers from unfair practices. But the effect would be to reduce available choices, even in cases where a consumer fully understands and accepts the costs and risks. For many consumers, this will make credit more expensive and harder to get.[4] Undermines safety and soundness regulation. The proposed Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would nominally be part of the Federal Reserve System, but it would have substantial autonomy. Decisions of the new bureau would not be subject to approval by the Fed. New rules could be stopped only through a cumbersome, after-the-fact review process involving a council of all the major regulatory agencies. This could impede efforts of economic (or “safety and soundness”) regulators to ensure the financial stability of regulated firms, as the new, independent “consumer” regulator would establish rules that conflict with that goal. Enriches trial lawyers by authorizing consumer regulators to ban arbitration agreements. Section 1028 specifically authorizes the new consumer regulatory agency to ban arbitration agreements between consumers and financial firms. By reducing the use of streamlined dispute resolution procedures, more consumers and businesses would be forced to pay the costs of litigation—to the benefit of trial lawyers. Subjects firms to hundreds of varying state and local rules. Section 1044 limits pre-emption of state and local rules, subjecting banks and their customers to confusing, costly, and inconsistent red tape imposed by regulators in jurisdictions across the country. Subjects non-financial firms to financial regulation. Regulation under this legislation would extend far beyond banks. Many firms largely outside the financial industry would find themselves caught in the regulatory net. Section 102(B)(ii) of the bill defines a “nonbank financial company”” as a company “substantially engaged in activities … that are financial in nature.” The phrase “financial in nature” is defined in existing law quite broadly. According to former Treasury official Gregory Zerzan, it includes things such as “holding assets of others in trust, investing in securities … or even leasing real estate and offering certain consulting services.”[5] As a result, a broad swath of private industry may find itself ensnared in the financial regulatory net. As Zerzan explains: “An airplane manufacturer that holds customer down payments for future delivery, a large home improvement chain that invests its profits as part of a plan to increase revenues, and an energy firm that makes markets in derivatives are all engaged in ‘financial activities’ and potentially subject to systemic risk regulation.” Imposes one-size-fits-all reform in derivative markets. The bill would subject derivatives now traded over-the-counter by banks and other financial institutions to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and/or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It would require most derivative contracts to be settled through a clearinghouse rather than directly between the parties. Yet derivatives are already increasingly being traded on clearinghouses thanks to private efforts coordinated by the New York Fed.[6] The Senate’s bill, however, would require virtually all derivatives to be so traded. Applying such ill-designed blanket regulation would make financial derivatives more costly, more difficult to customize, and, consequently, less widely used—which would increase overall risk in the economy.[7] Allows activist groups to use the corporate governance process for issues unrelated to the corporation or its shareholders. Section 972 of the bill authorizes the SEC to require firms to allow shareholders to nominate directors in proxy statement. Such proxy access turns corporate board elections from a process designed to ensure that each board has a good mix of skills and experience into a popularity contest where the long-term interests of the stockholders become secondary to political agendas or corporate raiders. The process can also be used by labor unions, politicians who manage public pension funds, and others to force corporations to respond to pet social or political causes. Does nothing to address problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two government-sponsored housing giants helped fuel the housing bubble. When it popped, taxpayers—because of an implicit guarantee by the U.S. Treasury—found themselves on the hook for some $125 billion in bailout money. Not only has little of this amount been paid back, but the Treasury Department recently eliminated the cap on how much more Fannie and Freddie can receive. Yet the bill does nothing to resolve the problem or reform these government-run enterprises.

Contact your Senators today and oppose what is turning out to be yet another piece of ignorant legislation that the idiots in Washington are imagining will somehow be good for us.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senator Dodd’s Regulation Plan: 14 Fatal Flaws
James Gattuso
Heritage.org
April 22, 2010

The New Democrat Image: A Culture Of Corruptness

Even the most dyed-in-wool Democrat has to admit that the major promise of Nancy Pelosi and company in 2006, that is the promise to rid D.C. of the "culture of corruption," has been utterly and completely broken.

And despite Barack Obama's promise to bring change to D.C., he only brought with him the business as usual Chicago-politics style.

Take for example Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT). He is in deep trouble thanks to some whistle-blowers who have exposed him. But, contrary to the campaign promises of 2006 and 2008, the Dems are taking no action to get rid of the corruption that Dodd represents.

Michelle Malkin has this:

The troubled Democrat is in deep over his sweetheart Countrywide home-loan deals, corporate bailout cash and crony associations. New revelations by Countrywide whistleblower Robert Feinberg confirm what more and more of Dodd's constituents in Connecticut are coming to realize: He's a lying weasel. Dodd denied knowledge of the special treatment the subprime mortgage company had given him and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad on home loans. (Dodd's were worth more than $800,000.) Feinberg flatly contradicted him in secret testimony on the Hill this week.

And what does Obama do in response to this evidence of corruption? Read on:

"I can't say it any clearer: I will be helping Chris Dodd because he deserves the help," Obama announced in April. "He just has an extraordinary record of accomplishment, and I think the people of Connecticut will come to recognize that."

So far, Obama has not withdrawn his support.

But it isn't just Dodd that is a problem. Many Democrats have their own corruption issues, none of which are being addressed by a president who made a campaign promise to address such things.

More:

Obama progressives should cringe at their president's bear hug of one of the most ethically compromised politicians on Capitol Hill. The Beltway swamp is teeming with Democratic corruption scandals -- Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha's earmark factory and tax-subsidized airports and radars to nowhere; New York Rep. Charlie Rangel's rent-controlled apartment scams and tax scandals; California Rep. Maxine Waters' business ties to a minority-owned bank that received $12 million in TARP money under smelly circumstances, for starters. But Dodd's career epitomizes the most fetid aspects of Washington's culture of corruption. It's a textbook case of nepotism, self-dealing, back scratching, corporate lobbying, government favors and entrenched incumbency.

And let's not forget Tim Geithner who failed to pay taxes.

The Democrats, rather than nobly standing up to the corruption in D.C. (including that within their own party) are instead hypocritically engaging in the very corruption they promised to fight!

Obama, Pelosi, Reid and other Democrats have transformed the "culture of corruption" into their own "culture of corruptness." Dems, instead of draining the cesspool, have jumped in and started splashing around.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Dodd And Obama: Corrupt Birds Of A Feather
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
July 31, 2009

Letters To Jim Webb And Mark Warner Concerning Retroactive Taxing Of Bonuses

Here are copies of the letters I emailed to Senators Webb and Warner concerning the retroactive taxes Congress wants to impose on the bonuses to be paid to employees of AIG.

Feel free to copy and paste this message and send it to your own Senators:

[Senator], I am writing you to ask you to vote "Nay" on the upcoming bill that would impose retroactive taxes on bonuses paid out to AIG employees. Whether those bonuses are right or wrong, good or bad, is immaterial to my concern here. I am concerned about the integrity of the Constitution of the United States of America. Specifically, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 which clearly and unambiguously states: "No Bill of Attander or Ex Post Facto law shall be passed." HR1586 which passed the House yesterday falls, by definition, under that clause in two ways. First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (e.g. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional. Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and Barack Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking to implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law. This too makes this legislation unconstitutional. Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional. Anyone who would willingly violate a single provision of the Constitution would most certainly be willing to violate any other provision. Please do not be such a person. Please vote "Nay" on the Senate version of HR1586 and preserve the integrity of the Constitution. Thank you.

As I wrote earlier, if this becomes law and is not struck down by the Supreme Court, the Republic will be in grave danger.

Tax The AIG Bonuses? Only If You Want To Violate The Constitution.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly and unambiguously states: "No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed."

I'm sure we all remember this from our 4th grade history lessons. That's where I learned that "Ex Post Facto" means "After the Fact."

But, apparently, the Democrats and other members of Congress are not as well versed as I am about what is written in the Constitution.

First, we know that the Democrats in Congress voted to approve of a stimulus package that contained the Dodd Amendment which explicitly exempted the bonuses that AIG would pay out to its employees. Then, President Obama signed that legislation into law. This means that those bonuses were made perfectly legal according to the current Congress and the current President.

Now, they want to pass legislation that retroactively repeals that amendment.

According to the Fox News:

Senate and House lawmakers have returned to the idea of imposing heavy taxes to recover the bonus money. Ten House Democrats introduced a bill Tuesday to tax all bonuses above $100,000 at 100 percent to recoup all the "outrageous" AIG bonuses. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also vowed to recover a sizeable chunk of the money. "Remember, we, as a Congress, are not defenseless. We can also do things," the Nevada Democrat said Tuesday, announcing he has tasked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., with crafting a proposal to recover the bonuses. He said the legislation would be proposed by Wednesday and subject the bonuses to a tax of more than 90 percent. He also said lawmakers would soon work with the administration to complete a Wall Street accountability bill.

This is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned as an "Ex Post Facto" law.

This legislation must not even be considered. Those who will be considering it or supporting it will be in violation of their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

So, what would you choose? Irrational emotionalism over something that the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Democrat President approved of, or would you choose to support the explicit admonitions of the U.S. Constitution?

I choose the latter.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

To Recover AIG Bonuses, Lawmakers Scramble To Undo Protections They Approved
FoxNews.com
March 17, 2009

AIG Bonus Furor: Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Made The Bonuses Possible

Don't you just love it when a Senator steps on his/her own foot and trips him/herself up? I do. That's why I am blogging about Senator Chris Dodd and his hypocrisy about bonuses being paid out by American International Group (AIG).

While Congress was working on the porkulus/spendulus bill, Sen. Dodd added an amendment that I am pretty sure he wishes nobody remembered.

According to Fox Business:

That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax. The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.

So, the Democrats (and a few ignorant Republicans) are all up in arms about bonuses being paid out in strict accordance with a law that they themselves passed!

Can you say CHUTZPAH?

Here are the rules of the Dodd amendment:

Crack down on bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation: Bonuses can only be paid in the form of long-term restricted stock, equal to no greater than 1/3 of total annual compensation, and will vest only when taxpayer funds are repaid. There is an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009. For institutions that received assistance totaling less than $25 million, the bonus restriction applies to the highest compensated employee; $25 million to $250 million, applies to the top five employees; $250 million to $500 million, applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 10 employees; and more than $500 million applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 20 employees (or such higher number as the Secretary determines is in the public interest).

Now, why would Sen. Dodd have done something like this? Perhaps OpenSecrets.org can provide us with the answer:



Note that Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were the two top recipients of money from AIG.

Now, people have known for over a year that these bonuses were coming out and a Democrat Senator introduced an amendment to make sure that those bonuses were legal. Why is their such a furor going on over all of it?

It is a distraction from other things, that's why. It turns out that AIG was used as a launderer to spread money around to other banks. Someone doesn't want us investigating that so they blow the bonus issue way out of proportion to try and make it into some type of scandal.

As for the outrage, I wonder why there was no outrage when public funds were used to shore up UAW retirement accounts?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries To Undo Bonus Protections He Put In
Rich Edson
Fox Business
March 17, 2009

It's Time To Call The Democrats On Their Lies And Kill The Community Reinvestment Act

What caused the credit crisis that came to national attention in September of this year? Certainly a number of factors all contributed, just as a number of factors would ultimately contribute to the collapse of a bridge. But any such collapse can be traced back to a single defective component. For a bridge, it may be a lynch pin or a truss cross-member. For the credit markets, it is the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA).

Investor's Business Daily says this bluntly in their November 28th Editorial & Opinion piece. But they also expose the reasons why the Democrats want nothing to do with repealing the CRA or changing it in anyway. From their editorial:

The Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the financial crisis, but it so powerfully serves Democrats' interests that they'll do anything to protect it — including revising history. The CRA coerces banks into making loans based on political correctness, and little else, to people who can't afford them. Enforced like never before by the Clinton administration, the regulation destroyed credit standards across the mortgage industry, created the subprime market, and caused the housing bubble that has now burst and left us with the worst housing and banking crises since the Great Depression. The CRA should be abolished, along with the government-sponsored enterprises that fueled the secondary market for subprimes — under pressure from Clinton, who ordered HUD to set quotas for "affirmative action" lending at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But powerful Democrats in Washington want to protect the act — along with Fannie and Freddie — and spin the subprime scandal as the result of too little regulation, not too much.

The Dems are repeating the lie that the subprime lending crisis was a result of de-regulation. That is simply not true and anyone with even the most basic understanding of economics can see this. The truth is that it was over-regulation that brought us to the current state of affairs.

More:

Repealing or weakening the CRA would be a mistake," warns Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who argues that the CRA should be strengthened. Dodd, the top recipient of Fannie donations and himself a beneficiary of a sweetheart mortgage brokered by a subprime lender, recently invited one of Clinton's top enforcers of the CRA to testify. "The notion that CRA has caused this problem is a pernicious thought," said former Comptroller of the Currency Gene Ludwig. "These are not truthful statements. The CRA has helped to create a better and sounder world for finance, not the opposite." Dead wrong. But the mainstream media believe it, and have attacked those, including this paper, who dare to tell the truth about the crisis. Already the debacle has erased $13 trillion in wealth, while putting taxpayers on the hook for up to $8 trillion in bailouts.

Yep. Sen. Dodd sure makes aot of money off of this mess. It is pretty clear why he wants to keep the CRA in place as well as lie about what the CRA is really doing to the economy.

How many more lies are going to come out of the Democrats' collective mouth before we voters see the truth and hold the libs accountable for what they are doing?

Here is the true history of the CRA mess versus the lies the Democrats are trying to get everyone to believe:

Fact: The 1977 law was only lightly enforced until Clinton added teeth to it in 1994 and launched an anti-redlining campaign against banks, led by Ludwig, Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros (and later Andrew Cuomo) and Attorney General Janet Reno that lasted into this decade. Minority homeownership rates, which had been flat, began a steep rise in 1995, and home prices soon followed, stoked by easier lending. Numerous bank officials complain that they still feel pressured by CRA regulators to make inner-city loans they know are at great risk of defaulting. Myth: The CRA could not have led to financial Armageddon, because the overwhelming share of subprime mortgages came from lenders that were not banks and not regulated by the CRA. Fact: Nearly 4 in 10 subprime loans between 2004 and 2007 were made by CRA-covered banks such as Washington Mutual and IndyMac. And that doesn't include loans made by subprime lenders owned by banks, which were in effect covered by the CRA. ... Myth: The CRA did not force anyone to do subprime loans or take excessive risks. Fact: Subprime loans were the vehicle banks used to satisfy CRA compliance, and Clinton and his regulators encouraged their use. Before Clinton took office, subprimes were virtually unheard of. By the time he left, they made up more than 9% of the market for mortgage originations. Today they're 20%. ... Myth: Greedy investment bankers, who securitized and sold subprime mortgages, drove us to the credit crisis, not government. Fact: Clinton's regulatory policies led to the creation of this new risk on Wall Street. His CRA amendments created the subprime market, and only after he pressured Fannie and Freddie to socialize the risk and guarantee the profit from the subprime loans did Wall Street get involved in a big way.

Is somebody actually doing something about this? Yes. In the House of Representatives, there are two bills that address these problems. First, HR 7264 would repeal the CRA. Second, HR 7094 would dissolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Write your Representatives and ask them to support these bills.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Stop Covering Up And Kill The CRA
Investor's Business Daily
November 28, 2008

Jim Webb Thinks We Virginians Are Stupid

Well, we've seen the effects of the bailout that both Senators Webb and Warner voted for to the tune of $905 billion. Stock markets are crashing. They would have crashed anyway, but now we are paying an extra $905 billion for it.

Before the Senate vote, I faxed letters to my Senators about my opposition to the bailout (as did about 80% of the rest of America). And Jim Webb responded with an email. Here is a portion of what he wrote to me:

For many years, I have said that the current Administration has failed to exercise appropriate oversight of the nation's banking and corporate sectors, and has promoted policies that reward Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. The Administration's actions are largely responsible for our current economic crisis, which resulted in President Bush's September 2008 proposal to help restore soundness to U.S. credit markets.

Now, either Webb is completely ignorant of recent history or he is deliberately lying to me hoping that I am too stupid to see through the lie.

The truth is that several times since 1999, the Republicans have tried to enact reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. You can read my earlier blog posts about how people like Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank have stonewalled those efforts by saying that they saw no problem at all.

Democrats Will Not Talk About Freddie Or Fannnie
84rules
October 7, 2008

Pelosi Declares Hearngs On Housing Crisis: Barney Frank To Co-Chair
84rules
October 3, 2008

Crony Capitalism Is The Root Cause Of Freddie And Fannie Troubles: Democrats At The Center Of It All
84rules
September 27, 2008

And a more in depth look at Barney Frank's statements about Freddie and Fannie over the past several years:

Barney Frank: Lies And Damned Lies About Freddie And Fannie
84rules
September 24, 2008

And he also wrote this little tidbit:

I opposed the original hastily-written and woefully inadequate financial sector bailout bill proposed by President Bush. In the nearly two weeks after the President's proposal, the U.S. Congress radically changed the original bill to better protect taxpayers and to ensure greater Congressional oversight. I am pleased that the bipartisan compromise legislation to stabilize our nation's economic system (H.R.1424), which the Senate passed on October 1, 2008 by a bipartisan vote of 74-25, bore no resemblance to the original Bush proposal.

Now, the only real difference between the original bill and the one Webb voted for was over $150 billion in earmarks and pork. Thus, if we follow Webb's own words, the only reason he voted for the second version was because it contained so much irresponsible spending! Look at all the wooden arrows Webb voted for! Look at all the Rum from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands Webb voted for! Webb voted to give Hollywood a $500 million tax break for making movies! Those are among the the differences between the original bill and the bill that the Senate passed!

So, Senator Webb either has the most incompetent research staff in the Senate, or he is deliberately lying to us Virginians about the true causes of the current financial crisis and the true reasons he voted for it. Or another theory is that he is simply toting the Democrat Party line because that is what he was told to do by his political masters even if it means going against the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Anyway you cut it, he must really think that we Virginians are stupid.

We need to make sure that he is a one-term Senator and then elect someone who will actually represent Virginia rather than the interests of the Democrats.

Democrats Will Not Talk About Freddie Mac Or Fannie Mae In Their Sham Hearings

HAT TIP TO HOT AIR!

Man! Did we predict this or what? In an earlier post, I speculated that Pelosi and Company would not be bringing people like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Franklin Raines before Congress to answer questions about their roles in the Freddie and Fannie meltdown. I was right. She won't.

In fact, the Dems will only being before Congress the Wall Street CEOs, despite the fact that these CEOs did everything they could to obey the law under the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act and it was trying to stay within that law that led to the current sistuation we are in. Will the Dems acknowledge this? No! They are trying to deflect the blame elsewhere.

From Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air:

Democrats have begun a search for the culprit in the financial collapse in a manner somewhat akin to the OJ Simpson search for Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman’s murderer. The Hill reports that Henry Waxman’s Oversight Committee hearing grilled Lehman Brothers executives over CEO pay and “deregulation”, but never mentioned the names Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Republicans found that more than a little strange.

Here is what The Hill is reporting:

Democrats aimed their harshest attacks at deregulation and CEO pay, using former Lehman Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard Fuld as an example during a recess hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) also released internal documents showing Lehman’s compensation committee recommended $20 million in “special payments” to three departing executives on Sept. 11, four days before the firm filed for bankruptcy. Republicans, for their part, launched a campaign to pin the financial meltdown on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and attacked Waxman for not holding a hearing to dig into the now-nationalized mortgage giants. “Any hearing on oversight that does not begin with Fannie and Freddie and [former Fannie Mae CEO] Franklin Raines will be a sham,” said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.). “This is like investigating a train robbery and only talking to the dining car stewards.”

And check out this video of Chris Shays ripping into Congress for its own part in the Freddie/Fannie mess:

Video From C-SPAN Here

you can access the orginal Hot Air entry on-line here:

Democrats Refuse To Talk About Fannie, Freddie In Oversight Hearing
Ed Morissey
Hot Air
October 7, 2008

Pelosi Declares Hearings On Housing Crisis: Barney Frank To Co-Chair

Immediately after the Wall Street Bailout bill passed the House and went to the Oval Office for Presidential signature, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that there would be hearings on the subject.

According to CNN:

She said Congress will shine a new "light of scrutiny and accountability" on the nation's financial system to try to prevent a replay of the problems that plunged the nation into a financial crisis. Reps. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, and Henry Waxman, D-California, plan to hold hearings to increase scrutiny of the financial system, Pelosi added. "We want to take our country in a new direction for the middle class," Pelosi said. Frank told reporters Friday that starting in January, Congress will "have a major role." "We have to rewrite housing in America. ... It would be highly irresponsible if we were to stop here," he said. "Now we have to perform more serious reform."

Yet, she mentions nothing about the accountability of people like Sen. Chris Dodd, or Franklin Raines or Jamie Gorelick, the latter two having made millions off of Fannie while the organization itself was sliding into government conservatorship.

And what about Barney Frank Co-Chairing these hearings? Will anyone get him to answer questions about the way he blocked reform of Freddie and Fannie over the past several years? Will Pelosi demand accountability and transparency from him? No. She is nothing more than a partisan hack who just managed to cram through the biggest socialist package in American history.

Something else that should be looked into: Barney Frank's relationship with a former Fannie executive named Herb Moses.

From Fox News:

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.

Of course they didn't immediately respond. They need time to think up a way of spinning out of it.

You can access these articles on-line here:

Pelosi: After Bill Passage, Hearings Set To Begin
CNN.com
October 3, 2008

Lawmaker Accused Of Fannie Mae Conflict Of Interest
Bill Sammon
Fox News
October 3, 2008

Congress Passes Legislation That Hands American Taxpayers The Largest Bill In History

All the scaremongers said that it was necessary to avert a credit crisis.

Credit crisis?

Where? I was still getting credit card offers through the mail. A 20-year-old friend of mine just got approved for a car loan. Student loans are still being approved. Small businesses are still able to get loans. Exactly where is the "credit crisis?"

Only on Wall Street. And Congress has now authorized the President to screw the American Taxpayer with over $805 billion in responsibilities. Maybe our children will be able to pay this off, but those of us living on Main Street just got served notice that the Federal Government cares more about the people who make big campaign donations than they do about the American people.

From the Associated Press:

The final vote, 263-171 in the House, a comfortable margin that was 58 more votes than it garnered on Monday. The vote capped two weeks of tumult in Congress and on Wall Street, punctuated by daily warnings that the country confronted the gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression if lawmakers failed to act. Bush was poised to make a statement on the historic vote. "We all know that we are in the midst of a financial crisis," House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, said shortly before casting his vote for government intervention in private capital markets that was unthinkable only a month ago. "And we know that if we do nothing, this crisis is likely to worsen and to put us into an economic slump like most of us have never seen."

And this bailout is going to put us in a situation like none of us have ever seen!

Here is what I see:

- Wall Street Big Wigs and the Congressional recipients of their donations are stuffing my tax dollars into their pockets.
- Numerous recipients of earmarks and pork stuffing my tax dollars in their pockets.
- My gasoline prices going up because some idiot inserted a carbon tax into the bill my and stupid fool Senators (Webb and Warner) and Representative (Wolf) completely missed it!

Here is what I don't see:

- Accountability from those who caused this mess.
- I don't see Chris Dodd (D-CT) or Barney Frank (D-MA) being hauled before a Congressional committee to give account of how they blocked Republicans from enacting the reform that could averted this whole mess and saved us $805 billion dollars.
- I don't see Franklin Raines being hauled before a Congressional committee to explain how he made $90 million while Fannie was losing money.
- I don't see that the progenitor of this whole thing, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, has been repealed which means that banks and lending institutions are still being forced to make bad loans.

Let's see who the big winners really were:

Sec. 101. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable personal credits.
Sec. 102. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption amount.
Sec. 103. Increase of AMT refundable credit amount for individuals with longterm unused credits for prior year minimum tax liability, etc.
Sec. 201. Deduction for State and local sales taxes.
Sec. 202. Deduction of qualified tuition and related expenses.
Sec. 203. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.
Sec. 204. Additional standard deduction for real property taxes for nonitemizers.
Sec. 205. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes.
Sec. 206. Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment companies.
Sec. 207. Stock in RIC for purposes of determining estates of nonresidents not citizens.
Sec. 208. Qualified investment entities.
Sec. 301. Extension and modification of research credit.
Sec. 302. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 303. Subpart F exception for active financing income.
Sec. 304. Extension of look-thru rule for related controlled foreign corporations.
Sec. 305. Extension of 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant improvements; 15-year straight-line cost recovery for certain improvements to retail space.
Sec. 306. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to controlling exempt organizations.
Sec. 307. Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable contributions of property.
Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 310. Extension of mine rescue team training credit.
Sec. 311. Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety equipment.
Sec. 312. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 313. Qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 314. Indian employment credit.
Sec. 315. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian reservations.
Sec. 316. Railroad track maintenance. Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
Sec. 318. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 319. Extension of work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane Katrina employees.
Sec. 320. Extension of increased rehabilitation credit for structures in the Gulf Opportunity Zone.
Sec. 321. Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.
Sec. 322. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 323. Enhanced charitable deductions for contributions of food inventory.
Sec. 324. Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book inventory.
Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.
Sec. 401. Permanent authority for undercover operations. v Sec. 402. Permanent authority for disclosure of information relating to terrorist activities.
Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
Sec. 504. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation.
Sec. 505. Certain farming business machinery and equipment treated as 5-year property.
Sec. 506. Modification of penalty on understatement of taxpayer's liability by tax return preparer.
Sec. 512. Mental health parity.
Sec. 601. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program.
Sec. 602. Transfer to abandoned mine reclamation fund.
Sec. 702. Temporary tax relief for areas damaged by 2008 Midwestern severe storms, tornados, and flooding.
Sec. 703. Reporting requirements relating to disaster relief contributions.
Sec. 704. Temporary tax-exempt bond financing and low-income housing tax relief for areas damaged by Hurricane Ike.
Sec. 706. Losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 707. Expensing of Qualified Disaster Expenses.
Sec. 708. Net operating losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 709. Waiver of certain mortgage revenue bond requirements following federally declared disasters.
Sec. 710. Special depreciation allowance for qualified disaster property.
Sec. 711. Increased expensing for qualified disaster assistance property.
Sec. 712. Coordination with Heartland disaster relief.
Sec. 801. Nonqualified deferred compensation from certain tax indifferent parties.

And don't forget Sec. 117. The carbon tax. Now the Feds can royally screw our economy just like the governments in Europe are screwing theirs!

At least I can say one thing that is a bit of a relief. This bailout is going to ultimately fail and the economy is going to crash (we cannot keep the markets artificially inflated like this) and it looks like Barack Obama is going to win this election. The crash will happen on his watch and he will have no one to blame except himself and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Congress OKs Historic Bailout Bill
Julie Hirschfeld and David Espo
Associated Press via Breitbart
October 3, 2008

An Open Letter To Rep. Frank Wolf Concerning The Wall Street Bailout

Frank Wolf
241 Cannon Building
Washington, DC 20515

Subj: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act

Mr. Wolf,

As you already know, Senators Warner and Webb have voted “Yes” to bailing out the Wall Street Banks and Institutions that got themselves into a serious mess by engaging in extremely poor business practices. This bailout amounts to the Federal Government using my hard earned money to give a huge payday to a group of Wall Street executives while completely failing to hold accountable any of the people who caused this whole situation to begin with.

Further, this bill is being shoved down our collective throats since there have been no hearings, no debates and no investigations into the exact cause of the problem.

I recommend that at least four people be brought before Congress and put under oath to explain their exact roles in this matter. These four are Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Franklin Raines, who made $90 million in personal income off of Fannie and Jim Johnson who made over $20 million. I, for one, would like to know how these last two made money while everyone else lost money.

Beyond all of this is the pork that has been tacked onto this bailout. Main Street is going to bail out Wall Street for some Puerto Rican Rum and maybe some NASCAR tracks? How about that “Wool Research?” God knows we can never have too much of that now, can we? And what about those “Wooden Arrows designed for use by children?” Maybe we can line the Wall Street CEOs up against the wall and shoot them with the arrows!

This $700 billion legislation just went up to $850 billion, and now the House is talking about tacking even more pork onto this!

It doesn’t matter whether this bill is 3 pages or 3000 pages. It is still a socialist bailout that will saddle me and my children with bills that will take decades to pay off, if we can even pay them off at all.

Perhaps you should take the time to read through the entire bill before voting to require the American Taxpayer to handle more debt than we can afford.

Also, you should know that the contributions made to you in gratitude for your “Yes” vote on the original bill have not gone unnoticed. To wit:

Securities brokers & investment companies: $28,150
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate: $27,250
Commercial banks & bank holding companies: $21,700
Credit Unions: $13,250
Investment banking: $11,800
Credit agencies & finance companies: $11,250
Private Equity & Investment Firms: $7,800
Venture capital: $7,500
Banks & lending institutions: $6,000
Stock exchanges: $1,950
Savings banks & Savings and loans: $400
Commodity brokers/dealers: $250

The total you received from entities who support this bailout is $137,300. That is how much you have effectively been paid to hand me and my children this huge debt of at least $850 billion plus whatever other pork you and your peers decide to put into this thing. The latest estimate I saw was a final bill of $905 billion.

There is a reason these banks and lending institutions are failing. It is because the market is dictating that the fail. Once they do, businesses that engage in wiser practices will step up and take their place.

Please do the right thing and vote “No” on this bailout bill, or if you cannot do that, please explain to me why I have to provide a huge payday to Wall Street while those who got us into this mess get to walk away with no accountability and at the same time, are shoving my money into their pockets.

Thank you.

'Crony' Capitalism Is Root Cause Of Fannie And Freddie Troubles: Democrats At The Center Of It All

Terry Jones at the Investor's Business Daily has a nice, clean, concise and accurate description of what happneed at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and why we taxpayers are being cajoled into paying for it.

The truth is that depspite the shrill calls from Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank that it is "all the Republicans fault," it has been the Democrats at the center of the maelstrom. It was the Democrats who, at least twelve times, derailed Republican efforts at reforming Freddie and Fannie and as we showed in a previous blog post, Barney Frank was one of those opposed that reform very ferociously.

So, why did the Dems opposed the reform of Freddie and Fannie? Money. That's it. That's the whole reason.

Here is the history in a nutshell:

It all started, innocently enough, in 1994 with President Clinton's rewrite of the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act. Ostensibly intended to help deserving minority families afford homes — a noble idea — it instead led to a reckless surge in mortgage lending that has pushed our financial system to the brink of chaos. ... Fannie and Freddie, the main vehicle for Clinton's multicultural housing policy, drove the explosion of the subprime housing market by buying up literally hundreds of billions of dollars in substandard loans — funding loans that ordinarily wouldn't have been made based on such time-honored notions as putting money down, having sufficient income, and maintaining a payment record indicating creditworthiness. With all the old rules out the window, Fannie and Freddie gobbled up the market. Using extraordinary leverage, they eventually controlled 90% of the secondary market mortgages. Their total portfolio of loans topped $5.4 trillion — half of all U.S. mortgage lending. They borrowed $1.5 trillion from U.S. capital markets with — wink, wink — an "implicit" government guarantee of the debts. This created the problem we are having today. As we noted a week ago, subprime lending surged from around $35 billion in 1994 to nearly $1 trillion last year — for total growth of 2,757% as of last year. No real market grows that fast for that long without being fixed.

And the part about money for the Dems? Read on:

Fannie and Freddie became huge contributors to Congress, spending millions to influence votes. As we've noted here before, the bulk of the money went to Democrats. ... Meanwhile, Fannie and Freddie also became a kind of jobs program for out-of-work Democrats. Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, the CEOs under whom the worst excesses took place in the late 1990s to mid-2000s, were both high-placed Democratic operatives and advisers to presidential candidate Barack Obama. Clinton administration official Jamie Gorelick also got taken care of by the Fannie-Freddie circle. So did top Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel, among others.

And yet, despite the fact that the Dems are in the middle of this whole fiasco, Obama, Dodd and Frank are insistent that it is a Republican problem. Unfortunately, their surrogates in the media are spreading this misleading (or outright false) message.

But, do you remember all those campaign ads by Barack Obama about how their were lobbyists on John McCain's staff? Well, Obama should change his campaign slogan of "Change we can believe in" to "Hypocrisy for our own cause." Here is how Obama deals with those lobbyists:

Over the span of his career, Obama ranks No. 2 in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie, taking over $125,000. Dodd, head of the Senate Banking panel, is tops at $165,000. Clinton, ranked 12th, has collected $75,000. ... It emerged that Clinton aide Raines, who took Fannie Mae's helm as CEO in 1999, took in nearly $100 million by the time he left in 2005. Others, including former Clinton Justice Department official Gorelick, took $75 million from the Fannie-Freddie piggy bank.

Today, Raines is a top advisor for the Obama campaign.

So, the next time somone accuses the Republicans of this Freddie and Fannie mess, ask the accuser what happened to all the money that the Dems made off of Freddie and Fannie and ask when was the last time the Dems tried to reform them.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

'Crony' Capitalism Is Root Cause Of Fannie And Freddie Troubles
Terry Jones
Investor's Business Daily
September 22, 2008

Are You Better Off Than You Were Two Years Ago?

I’ve been away for a bit. I spent an extended weekend in Virginia Beach with my wife. This trip represents our “babymoon” since this will probably be the last time we have a chance to get away before our new baby is born in December.

Anyway, I know there is plenty out there to talk about right now. There is Troopergate and the fact that Todd Palin is refusing to testify. I applaud Todd for this. After all, we have already shown how Troopergate is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. Todd did the right thing in saying "no" to the partisan efforts of Democrats Hollis French and Ken Elton.

Then there is the bailout being considered by Congress. It is becoming known as the “Mother of all Bailouts” and it is a very bad idea. It will allow companies and firms who engaged in bad business practices to survive those bad decisions rather than allowing them to fail as the market dictates and thus allowing companies and firms who practice wiser and sounder business policies to step in and take over. That is what should have happened.

But I think a good place to start this week is by asking the question: “Are you better off than you were two years ago?” I think we can all answer: “No.”

Ever since the Democrats took over Congress, they have done nothing but allow or cause more damage to the American people. How can I say this? Easy. Check out the most recent Mullings column by rich Galen:

Just to review the bidding. On January 5, 2007 (just about the time Nancy Pelosi and her cronies took control of the House): - The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at about 12,400. - The New York-based Conference Board said its consumer confidence index was at 110.3. - The Bureau of Labor Statistics had the unemployment rate at 4.6% - According to CNN gasoline a gallon of gasoline, in January 2007, averaged about $2.20.

That is where we stood. Now, this is where we are:

- Last Thursday at about 1 pm Eastern, the Dow had hit a bottom of about 10,500 before Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke intervened. That is a drop of about 15% in the Dow from two years ago. - The Conference Board's latest take on the pulse of consumer confidence had it at a very thready 56.9 in August - a drop of about 48% - The unemployment rate in August was reported at 6.1% by the BLS an increase of 33%. - Gasoline prices are at about $3.70 a whopping 68% jump.

So, why blame Congress rather than the Bush Administration? Because, Congress is supposed to have oversight power. But rather than use that power to tackle real problems head-on, the Dems instead used it for pushing their own agendas, trying to grab and consolodate power and trying to embarrass the President. All of this happened to the detriment of the American people.

In fact, Congressional hearings were held to determine whether or not Major Laegue Baseball players were using steroids at the same time as a housing and mortgage crisis was brewing. They've held vote after vote of resolutions to surrender in Iraq at the same time that energy prices were going higher and higher.

I don't know very many Americans who are more interested in steroids and surrendering than they are in where they are going to live and how much it will cost to have transportation for their familes. The only ones I can think of at the moment are the Democrats in Congress.

So what changed in 2007 that helped to facilitate all of this? Read on:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct) took control of the House and Senate Banking Committees. Rep. George Miller (D-Ca) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Ma) took over their respective Labor Committees. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mi) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) became chairs of the Energy Committees.

If you read that closely, you will notice that all of the above chairmen have D's after their names.

The Democrats have been more interested in wrecking President Bush's foreign policy rather than working on the problems that they are required to work on under the Constitution. As a result, the American people have been suffering and will continue to do so as long as power-hungry Democrats who are willing to do anything, including hurting the American people, in order to gain and maintain power are in office.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Are You Better Off ...
Rich Galen
Mullings.com
September 22, 2008