I saw the following story this morning on the news, and was pretty surprised by it: One-Fourth of Overseas Votes Go Uncounted, Study Finds. Some of you may recall that John McCain asked for an extension to count votes in VA for absentee ballots requested by military personnel that were delayed in being set out. That was back in November.

Well, a new study has just come out from the US Senate, and you are not going to believe this. This is certainly timely given our conversations regarding our votes being counted, continuing tonight at 9:00pm (EST). Get this:

One out of every four ballots requested by military personnel and other Americans living overseas for the 2008 election may have gone uncounted, according to findings being released at a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said the study, while providing only a snapshot of voting patterns, “is enough to show that the balloting process for service members is clearly in need of an overhaul.”

Uh, ya THINK, Chuck?? No freakin’ kidding! These people put their lives on the line, and then one of their most basic right as Americans, the right to have vote and have it counted is treated so cavalierly? Yeah, I think that warrants an “overhaul.” SO astute.

There’s more:

The committee, working with the Congressional Research Service, surveyed election offices in seven states with high numbers of military personnel: California, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and West Virginia.

It said that of 441,000 absentee ballots requested by eligible voters living abroad — mainly active-duty and reserve troops — (emphasis mine)more than 98,000 were “lost” ballots that were mailed out but never received by election officials. Taking into account 13,500 ballots that were rejected for such reasons as a missing signature or failure to notarize, one-quarter of those requesting a ballot were disenfranchised.

The study found that an additional 11,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable.

Holy smokes. Twenty-five percent of the votes cast were not counted. I’m still trying to get my head around that, especially in light of the clear intention TO vote as expressed here:

Schumer’s office said that because a person living abroad must request the absentee ballot and show a clear intention to vote, voter negligence is not thought to be a major factor.

Rather, the New York Democrat said in a statement, there is a chronic problem of military voters being sent a ballot without sufficient time to complete it and send it back. He cited estimates that a ballot can take up to 13 days to reach an overseas voter.

Among the states surveyed, California had 30,000 “lost” votes out of 103,000 ballots mailed out. An additional 3,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable and 4,000 were rejected.

And that is exactly the issue McCain was trying to address in VA, where it was CLEAR that the fault lay with those responsible for mailing out the ballots. They failed to do so in a timely manner, especially considering the length of time it takes for the ballots to be received overseas.

So, what is the plan to correct this unacceptable situation? Well, this:

The hearing was to take up possible problems in the Federal Voting Assistance Program, a Pentagon program that handles the election process for military personnel and other overseas voters.

Oh, whew. I feel better now. That should take care of it, right? Ahem.

This just boggles my mind. Come to think of it, this isn’t just unacceptable, it is a breach of trust with those who are serving in our military abroad. They should be able to know that if they ask for an absentee ballot, they will receive it in a timely fashion. And, they should be able to know that their vote cast is a vote counted. We all should be able to trust that. Clearly, not only can those serving and living abroad not be able to trust in that, even when they do all that is required of them to cast that vote, but we cannot either. Not now, not with electronic voting machines, and not with rampant voter fraud. Something has to change, and it has to change now. At the very, very least, we all, every American, should be able to know with CERTAINTY that the vote we cast is counted, first of all, but counted correctly, second of all. And those who put their lives on the line for us deserve that at the very least.

Twenty five percent. 25%. One-fourth, 1/4th, of the votes not counted. Simply unacceptable.

The first round winners were determined by your votes and revealed last night on the Nocturnal Warrior Show on No Quarter Radio. You can listen to that here. We did a review of last night’s so-called press conference followed by the tournament results. The show includes the scores, a review of the next round matchups and all sorts of commentary that we just can’t fit here.

Remember, your votes determine the winners. We are asking you to look at each matchup and determine for yourself who is the bigger ass in each matchup (We are not asking who has the biggest ass, although that may have helped Oprah and Donna Brazile in round one). Without further ado here we go:

ROUND TWO

White House Bracket

6th Seed Rahm Emanuel vs. 3rd Seed Dick Cheney

Capitol Hill Bracket

Media Bracket

At-Large Bracket

There you have it. Just use the polls as set up at No Quarter to determine your votes. The Polls will be open until midnight Friday. This weekend, we will reveal the “Sweet Sixteen,” and open up the voting. The “Sweet Sixteen” winners will be announced on next Tuesday night’s Nocturnal Warrior Show where we will break down the Elite Eight.

Feel free to add your comments about the matchups below. The key is to have as much fun with this as possible!

It’s that time of year. If you are one of the lucky Americans still working in an office atmosphere, you probably have been inundated with bracket contests tied to the NCAA Tournament. I love the tournament and watch those games religiously, but here at No Quarter we deal with more serious fare and not everyone is a sports fan. So on Tuesday night’s edition of the Nocturnal Warrior Show on No Quarter Radio, we created a tournament of our own. You can listen to the show here (I highly recommend it; it was one of our better efforts.)

We revealed a field of 64 participants vying for the No Quarter Trophy. Our National Champion will be the person you pick as the Biggest Ass on the American Political Landscape.

We’ve broken the field in four brackets seeded 1 through 16 and have determined the matchups accordingly. All you have to do is tell us who you think is the winner of each matchup.

This will be a round by round affair. You can list your winners in the comment sections here or e-mail them to me at nocturnalwarriorshow@gmail.com. First-round winners will be announced on next Tuesday night’s Nocturnal Warrior Show. Feel free to submit all of your logic for making your picks.

So without further ado, here are the matchups.

White House Bracket
1st Seed Barack Obama vs. 16th Seed Bill Clinton
8th Seed Joe Biden vs. 9th Seed Robert Gibbs
5th Seed George W. Bush vs. 12th Seed Lawrence Summers
4th Seed Timothy Geithner vs. 13th Seed Susan Rice
6th Seed Rahm Emanuel vs. 11th Seed Jimmy Carter
3rd Seed Dick Cheney vs. 14th Seed Colin Powell
7th Seed David Axelrod vs. 10th Seed Eric Holder
2nd Seed Michelle Obama vs. 15th Seed Condoleeza Rice

Capitol Hill Bracket
1st Seed Nancy Pelosi vs. 16th Seed Christopher Dodd
8th Seed Charles Rangel vs. 9th Seed Mitch McConnel
5th Seed Chuck Schumer vs. 12th Seed Claire McCaskill
4th Seed John Boehner vs. 13th Seed Norm Coleman
6th Seed Edward Kennedy vs. 11th Seed Rolan Burris
3rd Seed Barney Frank vs. 14th Seed Eric Cantor
7th Seed Joe Lieberman vs. 10th Seed John Kerry
2nd Seed Harry Reid vs. 15th Seed Larry Craig

Media Bracket
1st Seed Keith Olbermann vs. 16th Seed Katie Couric
8th Seed William Kristol vs. 9th Seed Dick Morris
5th Seed Ann Coulter vs. 12th Laura Ingraham
4th Seed Rachael Maddow vs. 13th Seed Markos Moulitsos
6th Seed David Shuster vs. 11th Seed Ariana Huffington
3rd Seed Maureen Dowd vs. 14th Seed Rush Limbaugh
7th Seed Joe Klein vs. 10th Seed David Broder
2nd Seed Andrew Sullivan vs. 15th Jamal Simmons

At Large Bracket
1st Seed Chris Matthews vs. 16th Eliott Spitzer
8th Seed Rod Blagoevich vs. 9th Seed William Ayers
5th Seed Caroline Kennedy vs. 12th Seed John Edwards
4th Seed Donna Brazile vs. 13th Jeremiah Wright
6th Seed Bill Richardson vs. 11th Seed Michael Steele
3rd Seed Tom Daschle vs. 14th Seed Bobby Jindal
7th Seed Howard Dean vs. 10th Seed Alan Greenspan
2nd Seed Oprah Winfrey vs. 15th Seed Tim Kaine

There, you have it.. Just post up or e-mail us your first round picks and we will pare the field down. Have fun with this!!!

I was struck a month ago by the incriminating statements put forth by Senator Chuck Hagel and CIA head Leon Panetta, which I highlighted on February 16th in Legalized Bribery. Those statements bluntly indict our massive system of lobbying, political fundraising, and the quality of those running for elected office! In light of that article, I am more and more convinced that our elected officials have turned their offices into massive for profit machines at the expense of our public well being.

I commend the authors of this report, Roger Weissman and James Donahue, for taking the time and making the extensive effort to expose the truth. The full report, 231 pages in length, spares no detail. In studying it, I found the information and analysis riveting. Let me try to summarize it for you.

The report chronicles in real detail how Wall Street showered Washington with $1.7 billion in campaign contributions and $3.4 billion upon lobbyists over the last ten years. That money went from the lowest members of Congress to the President of the United States. 55% of the contributions went to Republicans and 45% went to Democrats. Yes, a truly bipartisan effort.

The authors are beyond thorough in laying out how the . . .

financial sector showered campaign contributions on politicians from both parties, invested heavily in a legion of lobbyists, paid academics and think tanks to justify their preferred policy positions, and cultivated a pliant media — especially a cheerleading business media complex.

The report highlights the electricity crisis in California in 2000 and the Enron debacle as precursors of our current situation.

They quote FDR in his statement, “our enemies of today are the forces of privilege and greed within our own borders.” The same clearly holds true today.

Where were our leaders with the vision and foresight to protect the public? Feeding at the Wall Street trough!! Let’s review what the $5.1 billion bought Wall Street and who in Washington facilitated the process. Later I will highlight a number of politicians who collected substantial amounts of these dollars.

Part I : What Did the Money Buy?

1. the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which separated commercial and investment banking activities. This act came out of the Great Depression. Former Fed chair Paul Volker supported Glass-Steagall in the late 90’s and still does today. The expected repeal of this Act allowed for the merger of Citibank and Travelers Insurance even before the formal repeal. President Clinton, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Congressman Phil Gramm, and Fed Chair Alan Greenspan were the primary supporters of this repeal.

2. the allowance of off-balance sheet accounting which promoted the increased leverage in banks.

3. the executive branch rejects financial derivative regulation. The CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading Corp), led by Brooksley Born’s effort, sought to exert regulatory control over derivatives. The CFTC was squashed by Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan. Then Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers told Congress that CFTC proposals would cast regulatory uncertainty over a thriving market. Aside from Rubin, Greenspan, and Summers, Senator Richard Lugar and SEC Chair Arthur Levitt also supported the Clinton administration’s lack of regulatory oversight.

4. Congress also blocked financial derivative regulation through legislation engineered by Senator Phil Gramm.

5. in 2004, the SEC succumbed to massive lobbying by Wall Street allowing for voluntary regulation. This acquiescence is the grossest example of the inmates running the asylum. In 1975, the SEC ruled that debt to net capital ratios had to be less than 12 to 1. This “voluntary regulation” led by Goldman Sachs and then CEO Henry Paulson allowed investment banks to develop their own net capital requirements. Merrill Lynch went to a 40:1 ratio. Then SEC chair Chris Cox acknowledged this voluntary regulation was a complete failure!

6. the bank self-regulation goes global.

7. the total failure to police the mortgage banking industry and its predatory lending. People may never have heard of outfits such as Aames Financial, Delta Funding, Ameriquest, Long Beach, and many more. These firms propagated massive frauds in lending to unqualified borrowers. They need to be brought to justice.

8. the federal government preempted a number of state consumer protection laws which would have mitigated a lot of the predatory lending.

9. the government allowed for purchasers of loans to escape accountability. Only the original mortgage lender would be liable for the predatory and illegal features embedded in the mortgages. This immunization of the investment banks eliminated their legal exposures and facilitated the continuation of fraudulent lending practices.

10. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expand their footprints into the non-prime mortgage market. Many politicians fed from the Freddie and Fannie troughs, but nobody more than Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.

11. the merger mania in the banking industry has led to institutions now deemed “too big to fail.” This report believes these institutions should now be treated like highly regulated public utilities.

12. the debacle that played out with the rating agencies only further facilitated this mess. These agencies were and still are massively conflicted.

Part II: Who Paid What and Who Collected How Much 1998-2008?

– Commercial Banks spent $154 million in campaign contributions and $383 million on lobbyists.

— Accounting Firms spent $81 million in campaign contributions and $122 million on lobbyists.

— Insurance Companies spent $220 million in campaign contributions and $1.1 billion on lobbyists!!

— Investment Banks spent $512 million in campaign contributions and $600 million on lobbyists.

A very large percentage of the lobbyists were former government officials!!

While the report makes a number of recommendations, a few strike me as self-evident and vitally necessary:

1. derivatives must be regulated.
2. limited leverage within financial institutions
3. revise the compensation system for financial institutions so timing of reward is linked to elimination of risk
4. consumer advocacy groups

The list of politicians receiving the largesse runs approximately 80 pages and covers the Presidency to seemingly every member of Congress. I was also struck by the consistency of contributions received during each election cycle by Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Dodd (D-CT). Schumer represents the Wall Street territory while Dodd has been a longtime senior ranking official on the Senate Banking committee.

As I perused the financial data specifically for 2008, I paused and reflected on the fact that these institutions were, and to a large extent still are in dire financial straits. While in the process of receiving government support, they had made or were making campaign contributions. As the government has haphazardly reviewed expenditures at these organizations, let’s shed the floodlight right back on these campaigns. It is not difficult to track campaign contributions to politicians back to taxpayer funds injected into these firms. In light of that, I know it will never happen but I believe the political campaigns should return those dollars to the public. Who received how much money in 2008? While not totally comprehensive, my back of the envelope analysis shows the following:

Barack Obama: $3.9 million
John McCain: $2.1 million
Hillary Clinton: $2.5 million
Rudolph Giuliani: $1.1 million
Chris Dodd: $650k
Mitt Romney: $1.060 million
Rham Emanuel: 160k

President Obama, Madame Secretary and gentlemen, please make those checks payable to “American Taxpayer” and let’s begin to return some integrity to our political process.

Where’s the media to shed light on this travesty? Oh yes, they are compliant and cheerleading.

Robert Rubin, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, Greenspan can,
Alan Greenspan, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, Paulson can,
Henry Paulson, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, Dodd can,
Chris Dodd, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, Gramm can,
Phil Gramm, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, Obama can…

Uh, oh!! We got real problems!!

LD

**Cross-posted from my blog, Sense on Cents. Come by and visit!

a href=”http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20090218/INS/902179963/1006″>From Crain’s:

Sen. Schumer has pledged to undo a provision included in the stimulus package that will make it nearly impossible for New York’s banks to hire foreign workers through the H-1B visa program.

The amendment to the stimulus bill, proposed by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Chuck Grassley, D-Iowa, originally would have banned the visas for any company that received money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. A compromise lifted the ban, but companies will still be required to hire from the growing pool of laid-off American workers first. Advocates say that the mandate is so onerous that it will virtually stop banks from bringing foreign workers into the country.

According to a report released last year by the Partnership for New York City, roughly 13,000 workers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are here on H-1B visas. The top visa sponsors in the area are the very same banks that have received TARP money. Those banks also have significant overseas operations, says Kathy Wylde, and this provision will hurt most when the economy turns around and the banks look to hire talent to tap new markets. …

Don’t put the hankie away just yet.

“When they require someone with a language or other skill who they feel is the best person for the job, if they can’t bring them to New York, they will move the function,” says Wylde. “That’s what’s happened in the past when we’ve had a shortage of the H-1B visas.”

Since the bill was signed with the provision included, Schumer will need to undo it in another bill, which could be tough sledding.

“This is a counterproductive amendment that could hurt New York’s economy, and we are going to work hard to change it,” Schumer says.

FROM: “Schumer’s Second Thoughts (Or: This Is Why Reading Legislation Before Voting Is a Good Idea)”

You know – we ragged on Bush constantly for his little jaunts and vacations. Funny, I don’t hear any of the Democrats talking smack about OBAMA already having taken TWO weekends away in less than a MONTH. Oh, right – Obama can do no wrong. I forgot. My bad. Ahem.

Getting back to the Porkulus Bill – once Obama signs it, the SECOND his hand finishes the signature, not only will we be in the hole for that $787 Billion, but we will have to borrow ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. Yes, I said one (1) TRILLION buckaroos. Yep! And where will we get that money? Who will lend it to us? Excellent question! Stu Barney said this morning that Japan is our biggest lender, but they are in the midst of a Depression, with a big “D.” So, don’t know how they will be able to pony up any more for our poor fiscal management.

And, the Stock Market has PLUNGED this morning as the Porkulus Bill is about to become law. Great. Way to stimulate the economy!

Oh, CRAP – maybe this IS their idea of “stimulus”!! To send it DOWN, not UP!! We are so screwed…

By the way, did you know that whole light rail thing in there is to have a high speed train go between Los Angeles and Las Vegas? Gee – I wonder who would have worked to get THAT in there. Hmm. Let me think. It couldn’t be the Mormon, Senate Majority Leader, REID who pushed for the Sin Express, could it?? Oh, no – I’m sure not.

While my senator, Lindsey Graham, is raising some eyebrows with his “Nationalize the Banks” cry, he gets it right in the following video when speaking back to Seantor Chuck “Chattering Class” Schumer:

Bottom line? We’re screwed. We’re screwed because the Party in Power is taking advantage of US because they can. We are going to be in debt for ages to come because of this Porkulus Bill, and the ADDITIONAL $1 Trillion we are going to have to borrow on top of that. The kicker is that this bill will do very little to actually stimulate the economy. That has nothing to do with Bipartisanship per se – it has to do with the Democrats taking advantage in a massive way, with little regard for restoring our economic security. That there was no bipartisanship of which to speak is unfortunate – yet another promise broken by The One. Not surprising though.

The bottom line is that this bill, soon to be a law, will do nothing to kick-start our economy, certainly not any time soon. Hey, I’m not the only one who thinks so. Go look at the freakin’ Dow – that tells the tale. And the tale it tells is a sad one – we’re screwed.

It cheapens the game, is horrible on the bodies of these athletes, and sets a BAD example for our youth. I hope he is telling the truth that his use was limited to those two years, and that his apology is sincere.

I bring this up because this issue was raised to Obama the other night at the big White House press conference. His response:

The president’s strongest answer was in response to the evening’s fluffiest question, about Alex Rodriguez’s confession that he had taken steroids.

After an honest baseball fan’s lament (”it tarnishes an entire era”), Obama jumped to a larger point that transcends sports–the lesson in A-Rod’s downfall for the young: “There are no shortcuts; that when you try to take shortcuts you may end up tarnishing your whole career.” (Emphasis mine.)

I about fell out of my chair laughing. Obama claims there are “no shortcuts”??? His ENTIRE political career has been one of “shortcuts”! He gets everyone else thrown off the ballot so he can run unopposed for the IL Senate. While in the IL Senate, the primary legislation that passed with HIS name on it was thrown on there by “kingmaker,” Emil Jones. Obama did little, if any, of the work for the legislation passed in his name. His handlers exposed SEALED information on his Republican opponent in his run for US Senate, thus ending up with Alan Keyes thrown on the ballot at the last minute. And, he did not even complete his first term as US Senator! (All of the above information, and more, can be found HERE.) Could Obama BE any more duplicitous?

Well, it turns out the answer is yes! It seems that Obama is claiming there is NO pork in this humongous stimulus package he is traipsing around the country trying to sell. Perhaps he is unclear on the definition of “pork.” Given how much pork Obama tried to get for IL while a US Senator, $740 MILLION, you would think he would know what it was. And he’s supposed to be so smart and everything. But he claims that there is NO pork in this stimulus package. None. That’s what he said. And right after he said that while in IN, he gave examples of some pork that would benefit IN! I’m not kidding:

OBAMA: “Not a single pet project,” he told the news conference. “Not a single earmark.”

THE FACTS: There are no “earmarks,” as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork — tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.

For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill.*, $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other “priority procurements” by the Coast Guard.

Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on “roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on.” He added, “And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart.”

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

* Remember, that coal plant was shut down for being “inefficient,” and they want to throw $2 BILLION at it.

There are numerous examples of the pork stuffed into this stimulus package, and I have detailed some in previous posts. But you can click HERE for a reminder. But there most definitely IS pork in this package, despite Obama’s nonsensical claims to the contrary.

And speaking of pork, how about this little payback for ACORN? Ah, yes. ACORN – the organization under federal investigation for voter fraud. But hey – they did their job, and accomplished their goal, so no doubt, Obama has to “show them the money” (and this isn’t the first time ACORN has found its way into one of these bills spending OUR money):

Bear in mind, your taxpaying dollars have already been shelled out to ACORN, despite the numerous investigations into its wrong doing over voter fraud/voter registration fraud. Yes, just as a reminder, back in April, ACORN and La Raza were the beneficiaries of $100 MILLION of your dollars in another Housing bailout. I’m sure ACORN and La Raza thank you. I’m CERTAIN Obama thanks you, since he most definitely benefited from the work of ACORN this past year. I’m going to bet Obama wouldn’t consider this pork, either…

I realize I should have offered this warning earlier, but if you have high blood pressure, you may want to skip the following video of Senator Chuck Schumer, a senator I USED to like, but how can you respect someone who says this:

You know what is surprising about this? That Senator Schumer seemed to have no qualms about insulting American citizens who actually do care how our taxpaying dollars are being squandered on pet projects and paybacks. His arrogance is staggering, referring to us as “the chattering class” simply because we do not want to have our great-grandchildren paying for some 36 hole Frisbee golf course, or billions to an organization under federal investigation, or inefficient power plants, or any other of the numerous pet projects tucked into what is SUPPOSED to be a JOB stimulus package. “Chattering class” indeed.

Feel free to contact Senator Schumer and tell him how you, one of the “chattering class,” feel about his contention that we do not care about the pork in this bill HERE. We, the “chattering class,” actually care about the course our nation is on, and the path down which it is currently being steered. It’s about damn time our representatives act like they care, too, especially when they are spending OUR money. We the “chattering class” care, all right – a lot. And we care when a US Senator dismisses our concerns about a tremendously flawed bill as if we should have nothing to say about it. That is not just hubris, that is condescension and arrogance toward the very people who gave this man a job. Senator Schumer has sure shown HIS true colors, and they are not pretty…Let him hear about it.

January 1, 2007 The International Economy

Fannie and Freddie post-election: the significance of the Democratic victories.

BYLINE: Owen Ullman

A decade ago, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the United States’ two mortgage financing behemoths, were flying high. They were among the most profitable companies in the world, had political connections to the White House and Congress, earned enormous bonuses for their corporate chieftains, and did not have to play by the same rules as other corporations. For all that, they could thank their congressional charters, which established them as Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs).

Those charters, which remain in place, grant them lines of credit from the Treasury, exempt them from local taxes, allow lower capital requirements than banks must meet, and spare them the mandatory disclosure requirements imposed on other public corporations. Most importantly, the implicit guarantee that Uncle Sam would bail them out in a crisis means a lower risk premium of roughly twenty-five basis pointswhen they borrow money. That quarter-point advantage is the basis oftheir lucrative business of buying and securitizing mortgages in thesecondary market.

As they grew larger and richer, critics warned that their lack of transparency and weak federal oversight would get them in deep trouble. Not a chance, they countered arrogantly. Well guess what? Like Icarus flying to close to the sun, the two companies have fallen far andfast onto their–dare we say–fannies.
It turns out the critics were right on the mark about the abuses that could result from lax accountability. Freddie paid a fine in 2003to settle charges that it misstated prior earnings by nearly $5 billion. Last December, Fannie reported that it overstated past profits by $6.3 billion. Meanwhile, federal regulators are trying to recover bonuses the top executives of each company received during the time earnings were misstated. In a suit filed against Fannie on December 18 to recover $115 million in compensation, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) said former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin D.Raines and other executives used numerous ruses to boost the company’s bottom line, and thus their bonuses.

Yet amid all the turmoil, lawsuits, and financial uncertainty befalling the companies, the current management teams at Fannie and Freddie have something to be thankful for in 2007: Democratic control of Congress.

The Democrats are less likely than Republicans to rein in the two companies’ financial practices. For the most part, Democrats like having leverage over the two GSEs so they can prod them to establish larger funds to make housing more affordable to low-income families. It is one of the top goals that the new House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) has promised to pursue.
Frank, who has one of the sharpest minds in Congress, also has predicted that Congress will pass a bill in 2007 to tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That may be his intention, but the political reality is that the Democratic Party has many higher prioritiesto pursue after twelve years out of power. Frank’s counterpart in the Senate, Chris Dodd (D-CT) has not expressed any interest in going after the GSEs. So it is likely that any legislation will remain on the backburner.

18 August 2007 The Washington Post

Higher Caps Urged For Fannie, Freddie; Democrats Seek Bigger Role for Firms

BYLINE: David S. Hilzenrath; Washington Post Staff Writer

Leading Democrats pressed their case yesterday to give Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a larger role in the troubled mortgage markets, arguing that the two companies should be allowed to buy bigger mortgages and more of them.

The market upheaval has shifted a long-running discussion of the government-sponsored finance companies from the esoteric edges of inside-the-Beltway policy arguments to the forefront of the debate over how Washington should respond to a credit crunch. It has given supporters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fresh ammunition to challenge those who think the companies should be kept on a tighter leash.

Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a candidate for president, told reporters that regulators should raise limits on the companies’ mortgage investments by 5 percent so they can pump more money into the housing finance system. Together, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hold about $1.4 trillion of mortgages and securities backed by mortgages.

Dodd was elaborating on a position he staked out days earlier and was firing back at President Bush, who last week said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reformed before the government considers loosening their restraints.

Dodd said Congress can’t pass a reform bill fast enough to deal with the crisis at hand.

20 September 2007 The New York Times

Fannie Mae to Be Allowed to Expand Its Portfolio

BYLINE: By ERIC DASH

A government regulator gave Fannie Mae permission yesterday to slightly increase the amount of mortgages it can buy for its investment portfolio, a move that analysts say will do little to ease the strain on the housing market.

The moves, along with similar ones for Freddie Mac, should give the nation’s two biggest mortgage buyers a bit more flexibility in managing their portfolios. The changes are also intended to encourage the companies to purchase as much as $20 billion each in subprime loans.

But just two days ago, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, in a letter to Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts said relaxing the portfolio restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could prove ”ill advised.”

Wall Street analysts said that Ofheo’s changes would do little to ease the pressures on the housing market. And Fannie Mae, which has lobbied to raise the portfolio limit by 10 percent, and several Democratic lawmakers said yesterday that the moves did not go far enough.

In a statement, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the chairman of the Banking Committee and a Democratic candidate for president, called Ofheo’s decision ”timid and inadequate.” He said the administration was ignoring the severity of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Others, however, suggested it could be a way for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to start regaining Ofheo’s trust.

”I actually think this was a smart way of giving the enterprises an opportunity to prove themselves,” said Josh Rosner, a managing director at Graham Fisher & Company who has been critical of Fannie Mae. Under the requirements, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must provide more frequent and detailed financial disclosures, including a monthly report that should more clearly parse out their purchases of subprime loans. . . .

It also came just two days after Mr. Bernanke sent a letter to Mr. Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, that defended the current portfolio limits and urged Congress to move cautiously if it considers letting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages over the current $417,000 limit.

16 November 2007 The Investor’s Business Daily

Freddie Mac’s Woes Come As Dems Try To Expand Lender; Sen. Schumer Not Giving Up; $2 bil loss, weak capital makes it harder to argue for larger Freddie, Fannie

BYLINE: SEAN HIGGINS

SECTION: FRONT PAGE NEWS; Pg. A01

LENGTH: 652 words

Freddie Mac on Tuesday declared a $2 billion third-quarter loss and warned it may have to slash its dividend and curb its mortgage buying to meet capital requirements.

A top Senate Democrat stuck to his solution: Let Freddie and Fannie get bigger. But it may be a harder case to make now. . . .

Big Problem, Bigger Solution?

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement Tuesday that it should surprise no one that the government-sponsored enterprises have been “negatively impacted” by the credit crunch.

“Today’s news does nothing to lessen the critical role that the GSEs must play in providing much-needed liquidity to a struggling market,” Schumer said.

A spokesman for Schumer confirmed he was referring to his own plan to lift the GSEs’ portfolio caps by 10%, at least temporarily.

Leading Democrats had proposed lifting the GSE caps to alleviate the broader housing crunch.

But that was before GSEs looked like part of the problem, reporting huge third-quarter losses.

To reach its mandated level of capital, Freddie Mac has signaled it may voluntarily limit its growth.

That comes as Democrats were gearing up to push the opposite direction. Schumer, and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., have both introduced bills that would lift the caps by 10%.

Their legislation would take 85% of that increase and use it to help refinance subprime mortgages at risk of foreclosure.

Frank is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which has authority over GSEs. Schumer is on the Senate Banking Committee. . . .

Republicans Favor Tight Curbs

Privately, a Senate Democratic aide conceded that enlarging GSEs now will be a “tough row to hoe.”
Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., didn’t mention expanding GSEs in a statement on Freddie’s losses.

Republicans have long opposed expanding the GSEs, arguing the risk of a financial crisis is too high.
“Because the GSEs are already large enough to pose a risk to the entire housing finance system, we must focus our efforts on making sure they are well-capitalized and well-regulated, rather than discussing ways to expand them,” Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the ranking Republican on the Senate banking panel, said in a release.

Freddie and Fannie can borrow at lower rates because Wall Street assumes the federal government would bail out them out in a crisis.

Robert Steel, a top adviser to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, told the Hill newspaper that Congress should focus on comprehensive GSE reform rather than raising the portfolio caps.

Those fears gained greater currency in 2004 when the GSEs were forced to restate past earnings lower. The scandal resulted in the forced departure of then-Fannie Mae Chairman Franklin Raines.
Congress later passed legislation giving the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight more authority over the GSEs.

Bottomline–Frank, Schummer, and Dodd, apart from being some of the top recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse, did little to avert this crisis and in fact appear to have exacerbated it. So count me a sceptic when it comes to trusting these clowns to put together a bailout program. They ignored clear warnings. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact of history.

But Hillary did something else today that is already having ramifications throughout the country. Hillary supporters are taking sides. And there are basically two camps. One camp that is sticking with the party and one camp that isn’t.

The first signs of it occurred at Hillarys Voice, a pro-Hillary meeting place where many of us have met and interacted for months. Campskunk, one of the moderators, mentioned that someone was taking comments in favor of McCain and posting them on a diary at MyDD.

Cjbardy didn’t particularly like Campskunk’s admonition and let him know it.

I really don’t care. I am not going to be cowed into silence because it will make Hillary look bad. Hillary has been screwed by people much higher in the political process than us.

I am pissed of about what the Dem Party has done to both Clinton’s, to Democrats all over and to this Country in general. They have put the vitality of the Party over the safety, security and financial well-being of this Country.

When a political party puts partisan interests over patriotism, it is time for that party to be disemboweled. That time is now for the Democrats. The Republican Party has its own issues but that is not my problem.

I announce my position about this campaign pretty much everywhere I go, and the more people who know that there are a lot of Democrats who are not jumping on the Obama bandwagon, the better! I am not keeping my feelings secret, and if they want to quote me, they have my express permission to do so!

Then a very good writer, and ardent Hillary supporter named linfar announced that she would be following Hillary’s request and supporting Obama. This set off a firestorm.

Elsylee28 pointed out the obvious. How could linfar simply up and support Obama when she had written so intensely about why he was unqualified to be President? Even dangerous.

Dear Lin,

really…hmmm

I don’t understand how you can write these article about Obama and support him
now.

“An Unholy Trinity of Hate” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=329

“Typical White People” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=257

“Follow the Money” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165

“Wright-Hamas-Obama” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=235

IN order to have respect for people’s opinions one must maintain one’s consistency. A lack of consistency exposes a potential lack in judgment. Political expediency and lack of judgment tend to go hand in hand. Because someone’s political expediency requires you to go against everything you have written about and which you have urged everyone else to follow, making such a suggestion now is somewhat unacceptable.

You either have the heart to fight, or you don’t. I will never side with anything which makes people question my heart. I will NEVER support candidate simply because I have been asked to by a “friend”. Hillary has political reasons to do this, but we should not be sheep and follow suit. Wait for her in 2012 and don’t support the OBAMA FARCE.

And as much as I respect linfar, I too have a problem reconciling what she wrote about Obama and her now declared support for him. But it is her decision to make whether or not I agree with her. And I don’t!

But the next few exchanges seemed to demonstrate how raw this sore is that we are all trying to heal.

Linfar responded:

You know, a lot of people on this board have to decide what they are going to do with their vote. I guess you among them. Hillary Clinton has said what she is going to do with hers. I stand with her all the way. Period. Go argue with someone else, ok? I am not going to engage in this discussion. I have been called every name in the book by Obama supporters. Now I have to get shit from Hillary supporters for doing as she has asked me to do? You are out of line. And frankly, I don’t even know who you are??

Seems a reasonable enough statement. But I would ask her to reread what she just wrote. She now supports Obama even though his supporters called her every name in the book?

Elsylee28 answered back:

I’ll tell you who I am….

I AM A HILLARY SUPPORTER TURNED JOHN MCCAIN SUPPORTER….

SAY NO TO THE OBAMA ISLAMO-FASCIST, ANTI WHITE, ANTI WOMEN, ANTI INTEGRITY, ANTI HONESTY MACHINE.

I AM SOMEONE WHO DOESN’T SELL HER SOUL FOR THE POLITICAL RHETORIC OF A SMART CAMPAIGNER BY THE NAME OF HILLARY CLINTON.

I BET ANYTHING, THAT NOT EVEN SHE WANTS TO VOTE FOR OBAMA. DID YOU NOTICE THAT SHE DID NOT MENTION JOHN MCCAIN IN HER SPEECH? IT IS A CLUE… DON’T BE A FOOL!

You know things are getting bad in cyberland when the all caps response occurs. And they are getting bad.

Atdnext came to linfar’s defense:

But please, PLEASE, let’s not destroy our nation in the name of “sending a message to the party”. As much as I disagree with the Superdelegates’ decision, they made their decision and we have a nominee. And as imperfect as Obama is, he’s still far better than McCain.

I am not so sure I agree with atdnext. Supporting a racist, elitist, friends with terrorists, out of touch bigot might be just a little more dangerous than supporting a real war hero whose patriotism NO ONE questions. Just maybe.

teese02a decided to say something too:

linfar and andrew sound like they are working for Obama. This group has always been about supporting Hillary. It is the Obama folks who need to leave. Linfar is wrong. You are only stating how you feel, not telling other’s to vote like you.

A provocative statement indeed. It is hard to make the case that supporting Obama is somehow supporting Hillary. When the Obama camp played it’s race card that wasn’t supporting Hillary. When they used blatant sexism that didn’t support her either. And when they used Republican talking points to smear her that definitely did not support Hillary. So just how is it that supporting Obama mysteriously also now means supporting Hillary?

You see, there is one camp that believes that the only way to reform the party is from the inside. And there is another camp entirely that believes that the only way the Democratic party will reform in any manner is if it is defeated soundly in the upcoming election. Call it a nuclear option.

Cam5maccrory well represents the second camp:

Reforming the party from within is wishful thinking. The only way a party reforms is by humiliating defeat, running off the rails, or egregious abuse in the opposition party.

If BO is elected, they will be in charge of the party…in fact are in charge of the party as we speak. Try to go talk to them about reform. Go talk to them about counting every vote…about changing the caucus system to transparent primaries. Tell them how you feel about it. I think we all know what the attitude will be.

For me…my only recourse is to withhold my support from the current party leadership and the BO party leadership. It’s a drop in the bucket but I don’t feel like I will be complicit in Republican style tactics…even if they worked.

Ronmaven echoed the sentiment and clarified it:

The defeat of Obama would be the best kick in the pants for the DNC we could possibly deliver. You want to CHANGE the party? Vote for McCain. You want the party to only get worse? Vote for O.

To some, NOT supporting Obama is the moral thing to do. Ccwarrior perhaps says it best:

easy decision for me I will sellout the party that SOLD me out. and I can live with that. I would never dis-respect my daughters, and vote for Obama after the treatment they witnessed from him doing this election …NEVER

But I have saved the best for last. Before I put it out there I want to make one thing very clear. I have nothing but the deepest respect for linfar. She has been a staunch Hillary supporter and she is such an excellent writer. I just happen to totally disagree with her about Obama and unfortunately may have to write things in the future that criticize her positions. It isn’t something I look forward to.

But having said that I think that unfortunately linfar grabbed a mug full of the Cult-Aide today because low and behold, she quotes from none other than the Prince of Darkness himself (Jonathan Singer) to make her point.

from mydd

Singer: Can you speak to the online supporters, the people online who are so strong for Hillary, who don’t want to see her leave, as a strong Hillary supporter yourself?

Sen. Chuck Schumer: As a strong Hillary support I say, look, I was for Hillary all the way. I was sort of the first Senator to endorse her and I guess I’ll be the last off the bandwagon, which I guess will be tomorrow. But, having said that, I would say to all of the people online, there’s too much at stake to sit this out, to be angry, to be bitter. There is too much at stake. A Supreme Court with more Alitos and Roberts. A continuation of the war in Iraq.

A failure to have a healthcare policy that helps people. A failure to have an energy policy that frees us from foreign oil. All these are such huge things that we have to do what Hillary said there, which
is overcome, not look back, even though there are lot’s of disappointments, but look forward.

I expected these bugaboos coming from Schumer. But a little reality never hurt anyone. Except Cultists I’m told. We hear the same nonsense you would expect from otherwise seemingly reasonable people. The trouble is that they think they will be able to bamboozle and scare us with their line of bullshit.

Everything Schumer mentions is something that the Congress controls, not the President. Supreme Court… confirmed by the Senate. Iraq War funding…. controlled by Congress. Health Care policy…. written by Congress. Energy policy… written by Congress.

SO WAKE UP! And stop letting these people get away with lying to you.

The reason Bush has got away with so much and has done as much damage as he has these past 7 years is because of a weak, feckless and complicit Congress. A Congress that has allowed him to do everything he has done. Because a strong Congress acting in the best interests of the American people would never have allowed Bush to do many of the things they are so fond of complaining about.

Where were the Articles of Impeachment? The Speaker of the House said that they would never be introduced.

Why has the Congress continued to fund the war? The Senate Majority leader doesn’t know how to throw a knock down punch.

Why are Americans still being spied upon? WHY?!?

In fact, the Supreme Court that Schumer and others are warning us about has done more to stop Bush than all of the Democrats in Congress combined. So enough of these silly myths. I half expect Obama to come out next and state: “You are either for us or against us.” Wanna guess what my answer will be?

These spats. This falling apart is expected. And it will likely become more vicious and personal as the days wear on. I fully understand those that are toeing the party line. I used to be one of them. Until this year. Until the Democratic party proved to me that it didn’t really stand for anything any more.

I will do my level best not to make this a personal battle. I wish no harm or distress to anyone that stood side by side with me for Hillary. But everyone should know that I am sincere in my distrust of Obama. And I will continue to fight against him. There will be no real unity in the Democratic party until it has been ripped asunder and made anew. And no one better stand in the way.