Who is to Blame? (Revisited)

[jficquette]

Here is another prespective on how it all got started.

Market Commentary
Congress Lies Low To Avoid Bailout Blame:
BY TERRY JONES: INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Congress says it likely will adjourn this month having done nothing on the most important issue in America right now: the financial meltdown from the subprime-lending crisis.

Can Congress just walk away from a problem it helped create? Maybe, maybe not.

There’s now some talk of a grand deal between the Treasury, the Fed and Congress for a “permanent” solution: creating a government agency to buy up all the bad subprime debt, just like the Resolution Trust Corp. did with bad real estate in the 1980s and 1990s.

Already, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the subprime crisis from crashing the world economy. The collapse of twin mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the failures of Lehman Bros., Bear Stearns and insurer AIG, expose taxpayers to more than $1 trillion in liabilities.

Until now, Congress has been surprisingly passive. As Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid put it, “no one knows what to do” right now.

Funny, since it was a Democrat-led Congress that helped cause the problems in the first place.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently barked “no” at reporters for daring to ask if Democrats deserved any blame for the meltdown, you saw denial in action.

Pelosi and her followers would have you believe this all happened because of President Bush and his loyal Senate lapdog, John McCain. Or that big, bad predatory Wall Street banks deserve all the blame.”

The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi said recently, as she vowed congressional hearings.

Only one problem: It’s untrue.

Yes, banks did overleveraged and take risks they shouldn’t have.

But the fact is, President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.”

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Rep. Barney Frank, then 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.”

It’s pretty clear who was on the right side of that debate.

As for presidential contender John McCain, just two years after Bush’s plan, McCain also called for badly needed reforms to prevent a crisis like the one we’re now in.”

If Congress does not act,” McCain said in 2005, “American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.”

Sounds like McCain were spot on.

But Congress, too, ignored his warnings.To hear today’s Democrats, you’d think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

President Clinton supercharged these well-intended rules in the early 1990s. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms’ books to make sure they were in compliance.

Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called “CRA rating” that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.It was economic hardball.”We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible,” Clinton’s comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, told the Senate Banking Committee in 1993.

And they meant it.In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings. Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.

That’s how the contagion began.With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.Wall Street eagerly sold the new mortgage-backed securities. Not only were they pooled investments, mixing good and bad, but they were backed with the implicit guarantee of government.Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to become monsters, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans.

At the time of their bailouts this month, they held $5.4 trillion in loans on their books. About $1.4 trillion of those were subprime.As they grew, Fannie and Freddie grew heavily involved in “community development,” giving money to local housing rights groups and “empowering” the groups, such as ACORN, for whom Barack Obama once worked in Chicago.Warning signals were everywhere. Yet at every turn, Democrats in Congress halted attempts to stop the madness. It happened in 1992, again in 2000, in 2003 and in 2005. It may happen this year, too.Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington.

They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office).

The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who’s who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel.Collectively, they and others made well more than $100 million from Fannie and Freddie, whose books were cooked Enron-style during the late 1990s and early 2000s to ensure executives got their massive bonuses.They got the bonuses. You get the bill.

[equalizer]

Why didnt President Bush and the Repubs in 2000-2006 do anything about Fannie Freddie? What, they were blackmailed by dems? Dems had no power, they still dont. Real Answer: Those slime lobbyists paid off 368 out of 435 House and most Senators, and Greenspan gave them all cover.

[equalizer]

Why didnt President Bush and the Repubs in 2000-2006 do anything about Fannie Freddie? What, they were blackmailed by dems? Dems had no power, they still dont. Real Answer: Those slime lobbyists paid off 368 out of 435 House and most Senators, and Greenspan gave them all cover.

[equalizer]

Why didnt President Bush and the Repubs in 2000-2006 do anything about Fannie Freddie? What, they were blackmailed by dems? Dems had no power, they still dont. Real Answer: Those slime lobbyists paid off 368 out of 435 House and most Senators, and Greenspan gave them all cover.

[equalizer]

Why didnt President Bush and the Repubs in 2000-2006 do anything about Fannie Freddie? What, they were blackmailed by dems? Dems had no power, they still dont. Real Answer: Those slime lobbyists paid off 368 out of 435 House and most Senators, and Greenspan gave them all cover.

[equalizer]

Why didnt President Bush and the Repubs in 2000-2006 do anything about Fannie Freddie? What, they were blackmailed by dems? Dems had no power, they still dont. Real Answer: Those slime lobbyists paid off 368 out of 435 House and most Senators, and Greenspan gave them all cover.

[jonnycsd]

There is a lot of ideology in this thread. A look at history would be useful. Greenspan, rather than giving the GSEs cover, was long an advocate of reeling them in.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[jonnycsd]

There is a lot of ideology in this thread. A look at history would be useful. Greenspan, rather than giving the GSEs cover, was long an advocate of reeling them in.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[jonnycsd]

There is a lot of ideology in this thread. A look at history would be useful. Greenspan, rather than giving the GSEs cover, was long an advocate of reeling them in.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[jonnycsd]

There is a lot of ideology in this thread. A look at history would be useful. Greenspan, rather than giving the GSEs cover, was long an advocate of reeling them in.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[jonnycsd]

There is a lot of ideology in this thread. A look at history would be useful. Greenspan, rather than giving the GSEs cover, was long an advocate of reeling them in.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[urbanrealtor]

While the title of this thread is definitely in the Lou Dobbs direction, I would like to draw attention to the ecosystem and culture surrounding the run up in sale prices.

Perhaps its because I am reading “The Lucifer Effect” but I think that its too facile a view to simply find out who should be sued or hated. I would like to see a better discussion regarding culture and how it makes things fall apart.

[urbanrealtor]

While the title of this thread is definitely in the Lou Dobbs direction, I would like to draw attention to the ecosystem and culture surrounding the run up in sale prices.

Perhaps its because I am reading “The Lucifer Effect” but I think that its too facile a view to simply find out who should be sued or hated. I would like to see a better discussion regarding culture and how it makes things fall apart.

[urbanrealtor]

While the title of this thread is definitely in the Lou Dobbs direction, I would like to draw attention to the ecosystem and culture surrounding the run up in sale prices.

Perhaps its because I am reading “The Lucifer Effect” but I think that its too facile a view to simply find out who should be sued or hated. I would like to see a better discussion regarding culture and how it makes things fall apart.

[urbanrealtor]

While the title of this thread is definitely in the Lou Dobbs direction, I would like to draw attention to the ecosystem and culture surrounding the run up in sale prices.

Perhaps its because I am reading “The Lucifer Effect” but I think that its too facile a view to simply find out who should be sued or hated. I would like to see a better discussion regarding culture and how it makes things fall apart.

[Author]

Posts