Corrupt Barney Frank

T

TuTu Monroe

A Realist
September 25, 2008

Barney Frank opposed regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, but no one reminds him

I’m not going to give John McCain campaign tips (I'm leaning toward Obama), but how does McCain let such Democrats as Rep. Barney Frank get away with telling the press that McCain and President Bush opposed regulations on financial institutions, when it was Frank himself who long opposed those regulations?

Frank 'no crisis.' The New York Times reported on Sept. 11, 2003:
''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."
​
McCain warning. On the other hand, McCain on May 25, 2006, backed specific legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a year before Frank finally caved in and called for reform only after it was too late.
"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation," McCain said. "If Congress does not act, 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."
​
Yet I saw Barney Frank interviewed several times yesterday, accusing Bush and McCain of blocking financial reforms, and not one reporter asked him about his own long and loud record of willful neglect. As Power Line's John Hinderacker asks today:
Maybe it's too much to expect anyone to remember the distant past -- 2003 -- but still, it seems remarkable that Barney Frank can make the rounds of the television talk shows, pontificating on the current crisis, without being reminded of his own role.
​
Democrats' responsibility. Frank's audacity is bizarre. The press is equally stunning in its oblivious silence. McCain has made some attempts to tell voters about this, but McCain's words have been obscured or omitted in news accounts.


President Clinton put it best today to Chris Cuomo of ABC News:
"I think the responsibility 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."
​
Frank and others like him might have had good intentions in pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home loans for low-income, high-risk customers. But from the 1990s to 2007, the Democrats simply closed their eyes to the mounting threat that these reckless, highly secretive operations posed to our entire financial system.


Frank Warner
Update: More information that Barney Frank was destabilizing Fannie Mae as early as 1991:
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 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.
​
The Boston Globe, Nov. 22, 1991:
The federally chartered mortgage company Fannie Mae yesterday agreed to modify its rules restricting purchases of two-family and three-decker homes -- rules that housing advocates contend unfairly exclude low- and moderate-income families from buying homes in Boston.
After a nearly three-hour meeting with members of the Home Buyers’ Union, a local advocacy group, and representatives of Mayor Flynn and Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy 2d (D-Mass.), Fannie Mae officials agreed to substantially alter rules to allow what one termed “hundreds if not thousands” of buyers a chance to own two-family homes and three-deckers. …



Fannie Mae national spokesman David Jeffers said yesterday that the mortgage company restricted purchases of mortgages on multi-family homes after it saw many such mortgages go into default during the real estate slowdown.

He said the default rate on mortgages on two-family homes is twice that of single-family homes, and the rate for three-deckers is five times the rate for single-family dwellings.

But Jeffers said that after discussions with area homeowners, housing advocates, Kennedy and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Fannie Mae officials agreed to purchase the mortgages made under the state’s “soft second” program, the primary source of mortgages for first-time homebuyers of low and moderate means.
​
Temporary sanity. In 2002, Frank was on the right track for about a half day, but then returned to his policy of allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue operating with loose rules and little supervision.
Citizens Against Government Waste, Sept. 25, 2002:
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today marveled at the arm-twisting acumen of one of Washington’s premiere lobbies, home mortgage behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

After a speech this week, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the House Financial Services Committee's ranking member, let fly with characteristic bluntness regarding the Government Sponsored Enterprises’ (GSEs) $4.5 billion combined lines of credit with the U.S. Treasury. When asked whether he would consider revoking the lines of credit to the two Wall Street powerhouses, Frank frankly replied, “I would take a look at it. I don't think it (the line of credit) makes a lot of difference.”

Within hours, however, the usually pugnacious pol was falling over himself to backtrack. In a written statement, Frank meekly clarified that, “I apparently spoke imprecisely and gave an inaccurate impression of my views regarding federal policy governing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” To complete the pirouette, he stated that in fact, "I start from a position in favor of the existing arrangements with regard to both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." …



“Despite his hasty retreat this week, Rep. Frank took an important step by saying aloud what so many think: that it is questionable whether Fannie and Freddie, hugely profitable as they are, should continue to be implicitly backed by Uncle Sam while able to duck full transparency requirements,” [CAGW Vice President Leslie] Paige [said]. “If only Frank had had the chutzpah to stick to his guns.”
​
'Roll the dice.' Check out what Barney Frank said about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at congressional hearings in 2003. He certainly wasn’t favoring more regulation. In fact, he seemed aware he was gambling with the money in those institutions (and eventually, taxpayers' money).
At a House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003, Frank said:
"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...."
​
* * * Then. The New York Times, Sept. 30, 1999, reporting that the Clinton administration was sewing the seeds of a national financial disaster:
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. …

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.
​
Now. The New York Times on Dec. 20, 2008, blaming the financial disaster on the Bush administration and everyone else except the Democrats:
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.
​
Then. The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, reporting on President Bush’s proposal to end the high-risk lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and noting that Rep. Barney Frank opposed Bush’s call for reform:
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. …
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.
​
Now. President Clinton, in that somewhat self-serving statement Sept. 25, 2008:
“I think the responsibility 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.”
​
In The New York Times’ Dec. 20 report, Clinton’s Sept. 25 statement isn’t mentioned. The Times censors all evidence of the Democrats’ central role in destroying the economy.
In the Times, the president who tried to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s lending practices in 2003 is accused of opposing regulation. As usual, the newspaper’s whorish writers give the criminally reckless Democrats a free pass.

FW
* * * See also: Justice Department ruling: 2008 law removed Fannie Mae’s watchdog (November 2009).
See also: THE HUSHING: 5 years ago, Democrats told Fannie-Freddie watchdog to shut up about financial risks (October 2009).
See also: Barney Frank rolls the dice again, tosses aside mark-to-market regulation (April 2009).
See also: Darrel Issa reports how political abuse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused financial meltdown.
See also: Barney ‘The Gambler’ Frank blames GOP for letting him loot Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
See also: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: The Scott Barrett-Barney Frank debate.
See also: Michael Barone: Democrats were wrong.
See also: Barney Frank re-elected!
See also: Barney Frank claims he tried to stop high-risk mortgages in 2004. Really?
See also: Barney Frank in 2005: ‘You’re not going to see the collapse.’
See also: Newt Gingrich, why is GOP nearly silent about Barney Frank’s destroying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Note: I voted for Barack Obama.


September 25, 2008 in Current Affairs, Freedom, History *





Name:

Email address:

URL:


Comment:










stats
 
Last edited:
NigelTufnel said:
Hilarious. The wingnut obsession with Barney Frank blows my mind. I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

What's hilarious about the above? Frank is a powerful legislature (i hope I spelled that right, mean for it to be singular towards Frank not an entire body) and has been a big backer of Fannie and Freddie. To act like he hasn't had a powerful say in what has happened to them is to ignore reality. And Fannie and Freddie played an important role in the financial meltdown.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
but no refutation of the article or facts. nice. :good4u:
Click to expand...


I've been down this road before. Plenty of times. I'm not going to go there again.

I just find the obsession with Frank to be fascinating. By any objective measure, Barney Frank had little to nothing to do with the failure to implement reforms at Fannie and Freddie yet the way the wingnuts tell it Barney Frank is solely responsible. I just don't get where it comes from.
 
cawacko said:
What's hilarious about the above? Frank is a powerful legislature (i hope I spelled that right, mean for it to be singular towards Frank not an entire body) and has been a big backer of Fannie and Freddie. To act like he hasn't had a powerful say in what has happened to them is to ignore reality. And Fannie and Freddie played an important role in the financial meltdown.
Click to expand...


Well, to assess whether Frank had "a powerful say in what happened to [the GSEs]" you have to assess what happened with respect to the bills to regulate the GSEs that the wingnuts think would have saved the world.

I've discussed Frank's role in the legislative process on those bills at length in various threads. To put it plainly, Barney Frank did nothing to prevent the passage of any of the reform bills under consideration in the House and actually sponsored a bill to impose regulation on the GSEs that passed the House.
 
the bills did not work, they weren't good enough, they were not the same proposals that republicans, you know, the very proposals that frank shot down
 
Yurt said:
the bills did not work, they weren't good enough, they were not the same proposals that republicans, you know, the very proposals that frank shot down
Click to expand...


The bills never became law. On what basis do you claim that "they weren't good enough?"

The bills never became law because they never passed the Senate. That's my point. Barney Frank has nothing to do with the Senate's failure to pass the bills.
 
NigelTufnel said:
The bills never became law. On what basis do you claim that "they weren't good enough?"

The bills never became law because they never passed the Senate. That's my point. Barney Frank has nothing to do with the Senate's failure to pass the bills.
Click to expand...

they were bullshit bills and you knhow it, but you're hanging on by a thread which you're madly spinning in a desperate attempt to make your party look good

its tiring your pathetic apologies for frank and the dems...quit being so partisan and just admit he was totally against reform, basically saying the gop was racist, there is no problem....
 
cawacko said:
What's hilarious about the above? Frank is a powerful legislature (i hope I spelled that right, mean for it to be singular towards Frank not an entire body) and has been a big backer of Fannie and Freddie. To act like he hasn't had a powerful say in what has happened to them is to ignore reality. And Fannie and Freddie played an important role in the financial meltdown.
Click to expand...

That would be "legislator." :cof1:
 
Yurt said:
they were bullshit bills and you knhow it, but you're hanging on by a thread which you're madly spinning in a desperate attempt to make your party look good

its tiring your pathetic apologies for frank and the dems...quit being so partisan and just admit he was totally against reform, basically saying the gop was racist, there is no problem....
Click to expand...


Well, Yurt, the first bill that passed in 2005 is the one that everyone that hates Barney Frank thinks would have saved the world. So I'm not sure on what basis you claim it is bullshit. And, frankly (no pun intended) if it was a bullshit bill then I don't understand why anyone cares that Frank didn't vote for it (although he did vote in favor of releasing it from committee).

And the bill that Frank sponsored in 2007 was co-sponsored by the Republican that sponsored the 2005 bill. Notwithstanding your obvious expertise on the contents of that particular piece of legislation, I think I'm inclined to accept the fact that the Republican sponsor of the bill that would have saved the world sponsored Frank's bill is conclusive evidence that you are full of shit.
 
Yurt said:
they were bullshit bills and you knhow it, but you're hanging on by a thread which you're madly spinning in a desperate attempt to make your party look good

its tiring your pathetic apologies for frank and the dems...quit being so partisan and just admit he was totally against reform, basically saying the gop was racist, there is no problem....
Click to expand...

If they were "bullshit bills" then why didn't the MAJORITY PARTY AT THE TIME do something about it?

You keep trying to make this about the Democrats, while it was REPUBLICANS who had majorities in BOTH HOUSES, REPUBLICANS controlling debate on the matter, not to mention having your guy BEHIND THE DESK IN THE OVAL OFFICE of THE WHITE HOUSE, so you want to whine about financial reform not getting done, talk to the party in charge at the time.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
If they were "bullshit bills" then why didn't the MAJORITY PARTY AT THE TIME do something about it?

You keep trying to make this about the Democrats, while it was REPUBLICANS who had majorities in BOTH HOUSES, REPUBLICANS controlling debate on the matter, not to mention having your guy BEHIND THE DESK IN THE OVAL OFFICE of THE WHITE HOUSE, so you want to whine about financial reform not getting done, talk to the party in charge at the time.
Click to expand...

not in 2007 you ignorant tool, the dems were the majority, and you obviously have no concept of how bills are passed

in 2005 the dems killed it in committee, it was only after things started falling apart that the dems had to make a 'new' bill to cya
 
NigelTufnel said:
Well, Yurt, the first bill that passed in 2005 is the one that everyone that hates Barney Frank thinks would have saved the world. So I'm not sure on what basis you claim it is bullshit. And, frankly (no pun intended) if it was a bullshit bill then I don't understand why anyone cares that Frank didn't vote for it (although he did vote in favor of releasing it from committee).

And the bill that Frank sponsored in 2007 was co-sponsored by the Republican that sponsored the 2005 bill. Notwithstanding your obvious expertise on the contents of that particular piece of legislation, I think I'm inclined to accept the fact that the Republican sponsor of the bill that would have saved the world sponsored Frank's bill is conclusive evidence that you are full of shit.
Click to expand...

i meant the 2007 bill, i thought there was a later bill, but it was from the 2007 bill

tell me, what happened to the 2005 bill in committee? what did dems think of that bill in 2005? and how was the 2007 bill substantially different?
 
Yurt said:
i meant the 2007 bill, i thought there was a later bill, but it was from the 2007 bill

tell me, what happened to the 2005 bill in committee? what did dems think of that bill in 2005? and how was the 2007 bill substantially different?
Click to expand...


The 2005 bill passed the House with a majority of Democrats voting in favor of it. The bill then proceeded to the Senate where it was voted out of committee. Then, Bill Frist and the Republican leadership did nothing with and let it die. What in the world does that have to do with Barney Frank?

You tell me what was different in the 2007 bill from the 2005 bill such that you think the 2007 bill was "bullshit," notwithstanding that the Republican sponsor of the 2005 bill co-sponsored the 2007 bill.
 
NigelTufnel said:
The 2005 bill passed the House with a majority of Democrats voting in favor of it. The bill then proceeded to the Senate where it was voted out of committee. Then, Bill Frist and the Republican leadership did nothing with and let it die. What in the world does that have to do with Barney Frank?

You tell me what was different in the 2007 bill from the 2005 bill such that you think the 2007 bill was "bullshit," notwithstanding that the Republican sponsor of the 2005 bill co-sponsored the 2007 bill.
Click to expand...

So the people in charge doing nothing with the bill out of committee in 2005 had nothing to do with the fact they couldn't get enough votes to overcome a fillibuster?
 
cawacko said:
So the people in charge doing nothing with the bill out of committee in 2005 had nothing to do with the fact they couldn't get enough votes to overcome a fillibuster?
Click to expand...


It's convenient for them to claim that they didn't have enough votes to overcome a filibuster, but this is all after-the-fact spin. Frist and Co. never attempted to get the bill passed because it was not a priority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top