S.190

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Here it is: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-190

(it's very long)

Here are the sponsors: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Hagel+Dole, McCain, Sununu

Here is what McCain said, on the floor of the Senate, in May of 2006:

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. 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.

Here is an article on Bloomberg--written by someone in the McCain camp, Kevin Hassett--that talks about S.190: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

So, what happened here? The people now screaming for regulation appear to be the ones that prevented it?
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
So, what happened here? The people now screaming for regulation appear to be the ones that prevented it?
WTF! How DARE you inject fact and logic into a political discussion?

:D
 

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
5,378
Reaction score
288
Location
New Jersey
Website
infinitygoddess.net
The first link is locked out. The second doesn't mention S.190.

Do you have nothing to say about the specifics I have posted and linked to?

It doesn't have to. My point is that John McCain supported the deregulation that led to the crisis in the first place.

Anyways, From the NYT article that you were locked out of (sorry about that):

Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CHARLES DUHIGG
Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.


Mr. McCain, the Republican candidate for president, has recently begun campaigning as a critic of the two companies and the lobbying army that helped them evade greater regulation as they began buying riskier mortgages with implicit federal backing. He and his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, have donors and advisers who are tied to the companies.


But last week the McCain campaign stepped up a running battle of guilt by association when it began broadcasting commercials trying to link Mr. Obama directly to the government bailout of the mortgage giants this month by charging that he takes advice from Fannie Mae’s former chief executive, Franklin Raines, an assertion both Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign dispute.


Incensed by the advertisements, several current and former executives of the companies came forward to discuss the role that Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager and longtime adviser, played in helping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac beat back regulatory challenges when he served as president of their advocacy group, the Homeownership Alliance, formed in the summer of 2000. Some who came forward were Democrats, but Republicans, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed their descriptions.


“The value that he brought to the relationship was the closeness to Senator McCain and the possibility that Senator McCain was going to run for president again,” said Robert McCarson, a former spokesman for Fannie Mae, who said that while he worked there from 2000 to 2002, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together paid Mr. Davis’s firm $35,000 a month. Mr. Davis “didn’t really do anything,” Mr. McCarson, a Democrat, said.


Mr. Davis’s role with the group has bubbled up as an issue in the campaign, but the extent of his compensation and the details of his role have not been reported previously.



Mr. McCain was never a leading critic or defender of the mortgage giants, although several former executives of the companies said Mr. Davis did draw Mr. McCain to a 2004 awards banquet that the companies’ Homeownership Alliance held in a Senate office building. The organization printed a photograph of Mr. McCain at the event in its 2004 annual report, bolstering its clout and credibility. The event honored several other elected officials, including at least two Democrats, Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania and Representative Artur Davis of Alabama.


In an interview Sunday night with CNBC and The New York Times, Mr. McCain noted that Mr. Davis was no longer working on behalf of the mortgage giants. He said Mr. Davis “has had nothing to do with it since, and I’ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.”


Asked about the reports of Mr. Davis’s role, a spokesman for Mr. McCain said that during the time when Mr. Davis ran the Homeownership Alliance, the senator had backed legislation to increase oversight of the mortgage companies’ accounting and executive compensation. The legislation, however, did not seek to change their anomalous structure as private companies with federal support.


The spokesman, Tucker Bounds, also noted that the Homeownership Alliance included nonprofit organizations like Habitat for Humanity and the Urban League. “It’s not controversial to promote homeownership and minority homeownership,” Mr. Bounds said. More than a half-dozen current and former executives, however, said the Homeownership Alliance was set up mainly to defend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by promoting their role in the housing market, and the two companies paid almost the entire cost of the group’s operations.


“They were financed largely, possibly exclusively, by Fannie and Freddie,” said William R. Maloni, a Democrat who is a former head of industry relations for Fannie Mae. “We thought it would be helpful to have someone who was a broadly recognized Republican to be the face of the organization, and that person became Rick Davis.” Mr. Maloni added, “Rick, for that purpose, turned out to be quite good.” (Several executives said Mr. Davis’s compensation was not unusual for the companies’ well-connected consultants.)


The federal bailout of the two mortgage giants has become an emblem of what critics say is the outdated or inadequate regulatory system that allowed the financial system to slide into crisis this summer.



At the time that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recruited Mr. Davis to run the Homeownership Alliance in 2000, they were under new pressure from private industry rivals and deregulation-minded Republicans who argued that the two companies’ federal sponsorship gave them an unfair advantage and put taxpayers at risk. Critics of the companies had formed their own Washington-based advocacy group, FM Watch. They were pushing for regulations that would deter the companies from expanding into new areas, including riskier and more profitable mortgages.



Mr. Davis had recently returned to his lobbying firm from running Mr. McCain’s unexpectedly strong 2000 Republican primary campaign, which elevated Mr. McCain’s profile as a legislator and Mr. Davis’s as a lobbyist.
“You can say what you want about free-market distortions, but people like the system because it gets them into houses cheap,” Mr. Davis said to Institutional Investor magazine in 2000, adding that he would run the advocacy group out of his Alexandria, Va., lobbying firm.


The organization also hired Public Strategies, a communications firm that included former Bush adviser Mark McKinnon. Mr. Davis wrote letters and gave speeches for the group. In April 2001, he sent out a press release headlined, “It’s Tax Day — Do You Know Where Your Deductions Are? For Most Americans, They’re in Your Home.”



But by the end of 2005, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were recovering from accounting problems and re-examining costs, former executives said. The companies decided the Homeownership Alliance had outlived its usefulness, and it disappeared.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
The last paragraph is telling, I think:

But by the end of 2005, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were recovering from accounting problems and re-examining costs, former executives said. The companies decided the Homeownership Alliance had outlived its usefulness, and it disappeared.
Now, since I have no problem stating that McCain can be absolutely two-faced, it doesn't surprise me that once the HA was on the way out, McCain had no problem turning on Fannie and Freddie.

But...you're avoinding the issue. McCain flip-flopped. Granted. What about Dodd? Obama?

Dodd seems especially culpable, here. He opposed regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Why? And it looks like McCain's words--wherever he got them from--were spot on.

So again, can you address the sepcifics, or not?
 

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
5,378
Reaction score
288
Location
New Jersey
Website
infinitygoddess.net

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Obama's problem lies with money, even moreso than Dodd, since his career is so much shorter:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

And the article you linked to allows that the Obama campaign sought advice from Raines. Now that it's an issue, they're trying to minimize it, just like, say, Bush and Ken Lay...

But the thing is, the people now demanding oversight and regulation are the people that stood in the way. Fannie and Freddie are the genesis, imo. So the Dem talking point--it's the Republicans' fault--is disingenuous, at the very least. It looks like it's every bit as much a fault of Dem leadership as anyone else. And Obama was on the wrong side of it, it would seem.
 

shawkins

Ahhh. Sweet.
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
2,739
Reaction score
848
Location
The business end of a habanero pepper IV
Interesting article, and it does seem to indicate that the Dems were not as quick as one might have hoped to grasp just how devastating the crisis that the Republicans had created would turn out to be. Clearly, the exposure to subprime mortgages that FNM and FRE incurred following the passage of the bill (~30 billion, IIRC) could have been alleviated had they been a little quicker on the draw. Also, kudos to Sen. McCain for reversing his career-spanning stance on deregulation, even if it was too late to do any good.

However, it's perhaps worth mentioning again that 1) the sole responsibility for causing the crisis in the first place and 2) the remaining cost of the bailouts (~$970,000,000,000.00 and rising) that Bush, Bernanke & Paulson are currently pushing remain firmly on the tab of the Republican party.

I'll be curious to see whether the inevitable attack ads centering on S.190 will outweigh the fact that the Republican party has effectively reinvented themselves as socialists over the last two weeks in the minds of their base? Polls indicate voters aren't happy, and it's going to be hard to explain away Bush's various speeches pushing the bailouts through.

<shrug> You never know, though. I was amazed that the swiftboating thing worked.

I really, really, really love election season. :)
 

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
5,378
Reaction score
288
Location
New Jersey
Website
infinitygoddess.net
But the thing is, the people now demanding oversight and regulation are the people that stood in the way. Fannie and Freddie are the genesis, imo. So the Dem talking point--it's the Republicans' fault--is disingenuous, at the very least. It looks like it's every bit as much a fault of Dem leadership as anyone else. And Obama was on the wrong side of it, it would seem.

Do you have a record about how Obama is on the wrong side of this? Because he's saying that Main Street needs a hand, adopting populist rhetoric in all of this.

Furthermore, I do not think that Fannie and Freddie are the genesis of this. Their failure came when they were even privatized to begin with. No, the current crisis on Wall Street goes right back to repealing Glass-Spiegal. And that was before Obama's time.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
However, it's perhaps worth mentioning again that 1) the sole responsibility for causing the crisis in the first place and 2) the remaining cost of the bailouts (~$970,000,000,000.00 and rising) that Bush, Bernanke & Paulson are currently pushing remain firmly on the tab of the Republican party.
Except for repealing Glass-Steagall, right? You can call it the fault of the Republican Congress, despite the bi-partisan passage, but you can't erase Clinton's name from it.
 

shawkins

Ahhh. Sweet.
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
2,739
Reaction score
848
Location
The business end of a habanero pepper IV
Except for repealing Glass-Steagall, right? You can call it the fault of the Republican Congress, despite the bi-partisan passage, but you can't erase Clinton's name from it.

Greenspan had already effectively repealed it 1996, by an extralegal executive fiat [SUP]1[/SUP]. Clinton signing the law the Republican congress passed had no practical impact except to start the clock ticking on the statute of limitations for Greenspan's crimes.

[SUP]1[/SUP]Essentially he said "I don't care if it's a law, I'm not going to enforce it." Alan Greenspan, Republican pioneer.
 

LimeyDawg

Scars are poems too
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
2,782
Reaction score
491
Location
Room 101
Interesting that we seem to be trying to put a partisan spin on something that has the stink of everybody's "brand." If this isn't the poster child for unfettered capitalism gone wrong, nothing is.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Greenspan had already effectively repealed it 1996, by an extralegal executive fiat [sup]1[/sup]. Clinton signing the law the Republican congress passed had no practical impact except to start the clock ticking on the statute of limitations for Greenspan's crimes.

[sup]1[/sup]Essentially he said "I don't care if it's a law, I'm not going to enforce it." Alan Greenspan, Republican pioneer.
Perhaps he did that because of pressure from Clinton...

You can say it had no practical impact, but it did make it the law of the land, right? So, it wouldn't matter who was running the Fed after that.
 

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
5,378
Reaction score
288
Location
New Jersey
Website
infinitygoddess.net
Except for repealing Glass-Steagall, right? You can call it the fault of the Republican Congress, despite the bi-partisan passage, but you can't erase Clinton's name from it.

No, I can't, but I can call it not Obama's fault because he wasn't even in the Senate at the time.

Furthermore, I'm no staunch defender of Clinton. He's already got enough deregulatory blood on his hands as it is, between the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Telecommunications Act.
 

whistlelock

Whiskey Rebel
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
3,190
Reaction score
328
Location
Somehow I ended up in Fort Worth. Dunno how that h

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
5,378
Reaction score
288
Location
New Jersey
Website
infinitygoddess.net
Has anyone put forward that McCain's campaign manager was a lobbyist for Fannie and Freddy? I may have missed it in all the linkage above.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

Apparently, according to the article anyway, Rick had the task of minimizing government oversight of the two firms.

Which makes me wonder what role Rick had in s.190.

It also calls into question the integrity of the Bloomberg article that McCain staffer wrote. Talk about a conflict of interest.

ETA: Oh, and the McCain camp is now whining about the NYT piece, the very one you and I cited.
 
Last edited:

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
It also calls into question the integrity of the Bloomberg article that McCain staffer wrote. Talk about a conflict of interest.
S.190 is a matter of public record, as is who sponsored it, cosponsored it, and what was said about it on the floor of the Senate.
 

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
5,378
Reaction score
288
Location
New Jersey
Website
infinitygoddess.net
S.190 is a matter of public record, as is who sponsored it, cosponsored it, and what was said about it on the floor of the Senate.

Yes, but in your OP, you also cited an article some McCain staffer wrote regarding Obama's connection with Fannie Mae and then proceeded to claim that Fannie and Freddie were the genesis of the current mess we're in. And, as it turns out (surprise!) McCain's hands were pretty dirty too. Whether or not whose hands are dirtier, is up for debate, but I'm going out on a limb to say that it's McCain.

ETA: According to CNN, Americans in a 2-to-1 margin blame Republicans more than they blame Democrats for the current crisis.
 
Last edited:

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Yes, but in your OP, you also cited an article some McCain staffer wrote regarding Obama's connection with Fannie Mae and then proceeded to claim that Fannie and Freddie were the genesis of the current mess we're in. And, as it turns out (surprise!) McCain's hands were pretty dirty too. Whether or not whose hands are dirtier, is up for debate, but I'm going out on a limb to say that it's McCain.
Misdirection. McCain's transgressions have no bearing on the point, which is that the Dem shills for Fannie and Freddie in the Senate avoided regulation--for whatever reason--and are now complaining about a lack of regulation.

Lol! The same Americans that can't find Montana on a map and think Mexico is in South America? Look, from the standpoint of simple politics, people will blame--or credit--whomever is in power at the moment. That doesn't mean they have a clue.

And from my perspective, the problems in the economy extend way past any party lines. It's not a simple thing at all, despite the desire of armchair economists to point one or two things as the "causes." But the fact of the matter is, Fannie and Freddie were being operated by political hacks--of both parties, but mostly dems of late--for their own profit at the expense of everyone else. And Fannie and Freddie secured support, largely through the Congressional Black Caucus, by arguing that high risk sub-prime loans were benefiting the economically disadvantaged. So the pandering populist types in Congress ate that up. That's what blew Fannie and Freddie up, not interest rates, Greenspan, or Bush. And when this activity became clear in 2004/2005, they turned a blind eye or became indignant and refused to institute reforms.
 

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
5,378
Reaction score
288
Location
New Jersey
Website
infinitygoddess.net
Lol! The same Americans that can't find Montana on a map and think Mexico is in South America? Look, from the standpoint of simple politics, people will blame--or credit--whomever is in power at the moment. That doesn't mean they have a clue.

It certainly doesn't help that Republicans have been the primary backers of financial deregulation. Some of us who are political junkies have been paying attention to the very fact that McCain was very much in the thick of deregulation, along with his buddy Phil Gramm.

And from my perspective, the problems in the economy extend way past any party lines. It's not a simple thing at all, despite the desire of armchair economists to point one or two things as the "causes." But the fact of the matter is, Fannie and Freddie were being operated by political hacks--of both parties, but mostly dems of late--for their own profit at the expense of everyone else. And Fannie and Freddie secured support, largely through the Congressional Black Caucus, by arguing that high risk sub-prime loans were benefiting the economically disadvantaged. So the pandering populist types in Congress ate that up. That's what blew Fannie and Freddie up, not interest rates, Greenspan, or Bush. And when this activity became clear in 2004/2005, they turned a blind eye or became indignant and refused to institute reforms.

Believe me, I'm no fan of the corporate-friendly Blue Dogs and the DLC. I do not absolve them of their own responsibility in all of this, however, the point of the matter is, you linked to a Bloomberg article written by a McCain shill, when McCain had a guy on his team, Rick Davis, who was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae.

Furthermore, it's not the parties so much at fault, so much as it's the ideology that foolishly believes that the market forces can regulate themselves. This ideology is not limited to one party or the other.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Furthermore, it's not the parties so much at fault, so much as it's the ideology that foolishly believes that the market forces can regulate themselves. This ideology is not limited to one party or the other.
Did you not even READ this part of Rob's post????
And Fannie and Freddie secured support, largely through the Congressional Black Caucus, by arguing that high risk sub-prime loans were benefiting the economically disadvantaged. So the pandering populist types in Congress ate that up.
The subprime loans were a function of two GSEs, which are about as far from free-market as you can get, and which had special exemptions from oversight granted by the same politicians who created the GSEs in the first place.

The loans were given to people who were not financially able to handle the load as the payments adjusted. This is EXACTLY the type of Robin Hood plan that liberals claim will help the disadvantaged.

"If you only give them a chance, they can defy the laws of economics." So guess what, billions in economically unviable loans were granted to people to buy homes they could not afford, and surprise, surprise, those loans are now failing at amazing rates.

The subprime collapse, like the eventual collapses caused by Medicare and Social Security, is the end-game result of liberals attempting to deny basic laws of economics that started with Woodrow Wilson and FDR and their subversion of free-market economics based on the ridiculous theories of John Maynard Keynes. The piper must always be paid.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!
 

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
5,378
Reaction score
288
Location
New Jersey
Website
infinitygoddess.net
Did you not even READ this part of Rob's post????

The subprime loans were a function of two GSEs, which are about as far from free-market as you can get, and which had special exemptions from oversight granted by the same politicians who created the GSEs in the first place.

The loans were given to people who were not financially able to handle the load as the payments adjusted. This is EXACTLY the type of Robin Hood plan that liberals claim will help the disadvantaged.

"If you only give them a chance, they can defy the laws of economics." So guess what, billions in economically unviable loans were granted to people to buy homes they could not afford, and surprise, surprise, those loans are now failing at amazing rates.

The subprime collapse, like the eventual collapses caused by Medicare and Social Security, is the end-game result of liberals attempting to deny basic laws of economics that started with Woodrow Wilson and FDR and their subversion of free-market economics based on the ridiculous theories of John Maynard Keynes. The piper must always be paid.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!

As it needs to be said (repeatedly, it seems); Democrat does not equal being liberal. Many of the Democrats that Rob is talking about are corporate-friendly Democrats. They are not liberals in an economic sense (and sometimes, not even in a social sense, either). The Congressional Black Caucus, sadly enough, is not immune to having these kinds of Democrats in their ranks (Rep. William Jefferson and former Rep. Al Wynn coming to mind).

Furthermore, it's hardly a "subversion" of the free-market to have a set of rules in place for the market to follow so that they do not spiral out of control the way they are doing now. FDR was smart enough to see that no regulations were actually hurting the market, and thus was born Glass-Steagall.