McCain's penmanship is terrific for somebody that is physically unable to type on a keyboard due to war injuries.
Anticipating a problem is good. But when you control the house and senate and the white house, you are supposed to actually do something about it, not just write a letter. barfo
Right, not having 60 votes excuses them from taking action. Nice try. Did the democrats successfully filibuster against this proposal? barfo
Didn't you want to blame the Dems for our government's low approval ratings over the last two years, in spite of their less-than-60 majority?
No. They counted the votes (unofficially) and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's lobbyists got to enough Democrats that there wasn't a point in bringing it to a vote. In hindsight, they should have just to expose the Democrats for the economic saboteurs they really are.
The dems haven't done the most basic part of their job, which is passing 13 spending bills each year as part of the budget process. These bills do not typically have trouble passing (eventually), but not a single one has passed this year. If they wanted to pass McCain's bill or something like it in 2007, there seems to have been at least 19 republican votes to be had (no filibuster).
In hindsight, if they really thought it was important they certainly should have. Apparently they didn't really have the foresight to know what was going to happen. Either they didn't see it coming, or they lacked the balls to make an issue of it, or they lacked the political savvy to find a compromise that both parties could support. Whichever the case, they failed. Again, if your party controls the government, and you see a train wreck coming, it is your responsibility to act, not just write a letter. barfo
The did act beyond writing a letter. They wrote and sponsored a bill. Bringing a bill to vote that has no chance of passing due to filibuster is typical. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html 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. . . . 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. 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. <object data="http://s.wsj.net/media/swf/microPlayer.swf" id="MicroPlayer_295080" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="272" height="180"> </object>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. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): 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.
It's typical when unimportant things are at stake. When important things are at stake, you try to find a compromise that a majority can support, and you have a vote. You at least debate it on the senate floor. The republicans failed to do that. They just gave up and moved on to the next topic. barfo
No. I don't have some idealistic view of how government works. Obama took a lot of money from Fannie and Freddie and wouldn't vote for it no matter what. Chris Dodd, same thing, and he was the minority leader of the Senate Banking Committee then, and is the chairman of that committee now. The truth is that Democrats saw these institutions as New Deal wonders that couldn't possibly have anything wrong with them. And they took a lot of bribes from those institutions' lobbyists. And to pour gasoline on the current fire we're facing, they outright demanded that bad/risky loans be given to people who were questionable about being able to make the loan payments. To turn around your own logic: where's the democrats' bills to fix things before it all blew up? They've controlled both houses for the past ~2 years. Have you seen their brilliant ideas debated on the floor of either house?
Paul is a member of the House of Representatives. The letter was signed by 19 senators and sent to the chairman of the senate banking committee.
So Obama and Dodd kept the Republican-controlled senate from voting on this bill? That doesn't seem very plausible. I never claimed that the democrats wrote some very important letter, a picture of which is worth a thousand words. barfo
A picture OF a thousand words is definitely worth a thousand words. It's also a picture of zero actions. And worth just as much.
The senate has rules that make bringing bills up for a vote pointless and a waste of time at the expense of other bills that would pass. The facts are that these 19 republicans did sign this letter, McCain was one of several sponsors of the bill in question, and the democrats BLOCKED IT. Democrats ran on surrendering in Iraq, yet didn't put forth a single bill to withdraw the troops. That was worth more than a thousand words - millions of votes by voters fooled by this lie. Do you know what a "whip" (congressional leadership position) does?
One of the candidate has few words and zero actions, yet asks us to vote for him based upon his judgment. Here's actual words, real action (writing the bill, sponsoring it, writing the letter) that shows outstanding judgment. How outstanding? Look at what they were calling for and how it would have at least had a chance to avert the housing and credit crisis that's affecting the whole world right now.
