That are going to make my head explode. First, news that the ten executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are still operating in the red, and which are largely to blame for the housing crisis, got BONUSES. And I am not talking little bonuses, either. Those ten mo-fos got = and you better sit the hell down and swallow whatever you are drinking – $12.79 MILLION DOLLARS. Yes, you read that number correctly.

Gosh, I hate this Administration:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government regulator for Fannie and Freddie, approved $12.79 million in bonus pay after 10 executives from the two government-sponsored corporations last year met modest performance targets tied to modifying mortgages in jeopardy of foreclosure.

The executives got the bonuses about two years after the federally backed mortgage giants received nearly $170 billion in taxpayer bailouts — and despite pledges by FHFA, the office tasked with keeping them solvent, that it would adjust the level of CEO-level pay after critics slammed huge compensation packages paid out to former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines and others.

Securities and Exchange Commission documents show that Ed Haldeman, who announced last week that he is stepping down as Freddie Mac’s CEO, received a base salary of $900,000 last year yet took home an additional $2.3 million in bonus pay. Records show other Fannie and Freddie executives got similar Wall Street-style compensation packages; Fannie Mae CEO Michael Williams, for example, got $2.37 million in performance bonuses. (Click here to read the rest.)

So they got these massive bonuses for mild improvements after getting $170 BILLION of our taxpaying dollars. Are you freakin’ KIDDING me with this? Outrageous, just outrageous.

Just in case you need a reminder, check out this hearing from 2004:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Good grief, this makes my blood boil.

Next up is the Federal Government’s continued attacks on South Carolina, this time about our new Immigration law set to go into force in January. (You may recall that the NLRB went after SC for Boeing opening up a manufacturing plant here rather than in a union state, despite Boeing having plants in other states with unions, and which cost zero union jobs.)

Yes, the DOJ, that bastion of fairness and justice – cough, choke, cough – is attacking the state’s immigration law, which is similar to Arizona’s. If someone commits a crime, and the police have reason to suspect they are illegal, they can ask for proof of citizenship. If the person is illegal, the police officers will call in the appropriate immigration personnel to handle the offender. Additionally, businesses have to ensure their employees are here legally. (I thought everyone had to do that ANYWAY. I have had to prove my citizenship numerous times for positions I have taken.) But this DOJ takes umbrage with all of that, so it has filed a lawsuit against SC, naming Governor Haley as the defendant.

Now, let’s be clear – in no other country can you expect to go on your merry way if you are discovered to be there illegally. If you think you can live and work easily in another country without a visa, passport, or green card, go check it out. I’ll wait. Oh, no, I won’t because your ass will either be in jail, or on a plane home. No other country, including the two with whom we share borders, will allow you to live and work inside their country ILLEGALLY. Their laws are strict, and THEY ENFORCE THEM, unlike the United States.

The Federal government claims that this is their bastion – that’s their beef. Our governor, a daughter of LEGAL immigrants herself, Nikki Haley, said the government is not doing its job, it is not protecting our borders, it is not keeping out illegal aliens, and they are taking our jobs. Considering SC has higher unemployment than the national average, that is no small thing.

Here is more about both the law, and the complaint against it:

[snip] he government wants a judge to stop enforcement of the legislation, which requires that officers call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally following a stop for something else, U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles told The Associated Press.

“The Department of Justice has many important tasks,” Nettles said. “Two of those important tasks are the defense of the constitution and ensuring equality is afforded to all.”

The law says all law enforcement officers are required to call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The question must follow an arrest or traffic stop for something else. The measure bars officers from holding someone solely on that suspicion. Opponents railed against the measure as encouraging racial profiling.

[...]

The law also makes it a felony for someone to make fake photo IDs for illegal residents and creates a new law enforcement unit within the Department of Public Safety to enforce state immigration laws. It also makes it a felony for illegal immigrants to allow themselves to be transported.

Nettles said the law is unconstitutional and violates people’s right to due process.

I’m sorry, but none of those things sound all that egregious to me. The state wants to ensure people are living and working in the state legally, and it wants to punish those who try and get around that by making fake IDs, which I would think is illegal anyway. And this violates” due process”??

You know, if the DOJ wasn’t already such a laughing stock for the crap it has been pulling with not going after actual offenders, like the New Black Panther Party, or lying its freaking ass off over “Fast and Furious,” I might give them a tad more leeway. But they don’t deserve it. Not by a long shot.

Oh, but wait, there’s more. This is from none other than Janet Napolitano:

In a news release, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said South Carolina’s law “diverts critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermines the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve, while failing to address the underlying problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, freakin’ spare me already. DO YOUR JOBS!!! This is just another wordy excuse for not doing what the US Constitution declares is the role of the Federal Government – to protect the country and its citizens from “invasion.” Do your damn job, and stop attacking states when they have to resort to taking care of their own borders for lack of federal action.

And speaking of the DOJ and lying its ass off over programs like “Fast and Furious,” the DOJ dumped a TON of emails on Congress the night before another hearing on this program. Yep. They have had months to do this, but waited until the very last minute to release 650 pages. Why? Well, because there was a hearing scheduled for the next day, that’s why.

But get this – not only are there more Congresspeople demanding Holder step down, but the data dump revealed the following:

[snip] The new documents, according to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, “indicate that contrary to previous denials by the Justice Department, the criminal division has a great deal of culpability in sweeping the previous Wide Receiver strategy under the rug and then allowing the subsequent Operation Fast and Furious to continue without asking key questions.”

“Most importantly, officials raised very appropriate questions related to Operation Wide Receiver at the same time that many of these same officials were receiving briefings on Operation Fast and Furious,” Grassley said in a statement. “It begs the question why they didn’t ask the same important policy questions about an ongoing case being run out of the same field division.” [snip](Click here to read the rest.)

Have I mentioned how much I hate this Administration?

So, sorry if this makes your head explode, too. I just had to share. I am sure there are things going on in your neck of the woods or with this government that are getting on your last nerve, too. Feel free to share that with us, too. I need an aspirin…

Here is Stuart Varney explaining it all:

Yes, you heard that right – $160 MILLION dollars we have shelled out for these folks thus far. It is in their contract. Nice.

Fannie and Freddie are STILL dragging us down, be it through paying for these executives, or continuing to lost money on mortgages. To recap, in 2008, Fannie Mae lost $58.7 BILLION dollars, and Freddie Mac lost $50.1 BILLION dollars. And we are already in the red to the tune of $145 Billion now since 2008. One can only hope that the bleeding of money from these two institutions will be stanched, and SOON. Until then, though, it is the mother of bailouts since we owe 80% of the two now. You don’t even want to know what the anticipated amount is to fix them. If you can stomach it, click here.

But I am not holding my breath that Fannie and Freddie will get their comeuppance, which is long overdue. Considering Obama is expected to assert he wants to keep his spending ways when he gives the SOTU Tuesday night, I sure don’t see him taking on these two F’s.

Speaking of Obama, why is everyone acting like his actually getting a 50% approval in a few polls is the greatest thing since sliced bread? Is this an indication of our poor performance in mathematics that we see that as a GOOD thing? Many polls still have him below 50%, which is not exactly a glowing recommendation in my book (unless someone is a meteorologist, and then being right half of the time isn’t so bad. Ahem.).

I don’t get it. But that is the meme going into the SOTU – how Obama is doing SO well. Being crappy half the time (or more) at your job is NOT a good report, people, no matter how the pundits might want to spin it. I believe that would qualify as an “F” by most (all?) academic standards. Or at least it was back when I went to school (we didn’t get the “well, even though you failed at your homework, and failed your test, we are still going to pass you because we don’t want to hamper your self-esteem” pedagogy. We had to earn our grades, had to pass our tests, had to do WAY better than 50%, if we wanted to move on. Just sayin’.)

So, we continue to be bilked by Fannie and Freddie. They will continue to get our hard earned tax paying dollars to continue to operate in the red. Obama will continue his spending, deficit increasing ways, and ALL of this is passed on to us.

Gee – and he’s getting close to 50% approval? I guess some people don’t mind throwing their money away, especially to bail out a bunch of guys who lied, lied, and lied some more. But I do. How about you?

The Wall Street-Washington incest MUST end.

This coming Tuesday, America has a chance to ring that bell, expose that incest, cleanse the system, and deliver the message loud and clear. The peal of that bell must emanate from the 4th District in the state of Massachusetts.

You do not need to read Sense on Cents to appreciate that many politicians from both sides of the aisle have badly forsaken our nation’s future with misguided and ill-advised policies over the last few decades. Many of these politicians now look to save their skins– if not their souls– by professing a newly found religion with an anti-Wall Street mantel. America, and the residents of the 4th District in Massachusetts, should not be so easily hoodwinked. These politicians, especially Barney Frank, must be held accountable and sent home.

I implore the voters of the 4th District to think long and hard and appreciate that their longstanding elected representative Barney Frank embraced the people and the policies which continue to crush our nation. Which people? What policies? Those which were centered in America’s great financial sinkhole known as Fannie Mae then led by its former CEO Franklin Raines. During my own career on Wall Street, I witnessed Barney’s bear hug of Fannie and Franklin from up close. Do not forget Barney’s desire to ‘roll the dice’ with sub-prime mortgage financing.

Many media outlets will look the other way in holding Barney accountable; I have no interest in that.

In my strong opinion, Fannie Mae was nothing more than a Washington sponsored “Enron on steroids.” Who led the charge on Capitol Hill for the ‘private profit, social loss’ housing monster? Many Democrat and Republican politicos gladly stuck their hands in the Fannie Mae gift bag, but no politician more stridently promoted the programs of Fannie Mae than Barney Frank. Recalling Barney’s work on behalf of Fannie over the years, it was readily apparent to me that he had no understanding of the risks of mispricing capital. For those involved in the private sector and focused on properly pricing risk, the reality of a career politician not appreciating the proper price of capital is not difficult to understand. Regrettably, all of America now pays the price for Barney’s shortcoming and that of so many of his colleagues. While we pay that price, we do not need to and must not suffer from that shortcoming any longer.

I am not endorsing Sean Bielat simply because Barney ran interference for Fannie Mae and its failed socialized housing program for the last few decades. No, my interest in seeing the voters of the 4th District in Massachusetts “retire Barney” is also predicated on events of the last twelve months as well. How so? Where else did Barney fail us? Let’s continue to navigate.

Barney Frank is the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. In that role, he led the charge to supposedly re-regulate Wall Street via the Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Reform legislation. Say what you want about that legislation, but let me remind all of America that our pal Barney did not venture close to ‘ground zero’ during this process. Really? How so? As I wrote last March 22nd in my commentary, The BIG Hole in Financial Regulatory Reform:

Why am I so skeptical that Senator Chris Dodd’s proposed Financial Regulatory Reform (for overachievers in the audience, the link connects to the 89-page proposal) will truly change behaviors on Wall Street? For the very simple reason that I have seen no highlighting of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority within the proposed Financial Regulatory Reform. Strike you as a little odd? It strikes me that the Wall Street lobby is hard at work keeping its self-regulator, that being FINRA, right where they want it.

The fact that FINRA is not singled out by name in Dodd’s report is a HUGE red flag. Over and above that, Dodd’s proposal is nothing more than a review of the SEC’s oversight of FINRA. Why only once every three years? A review of the reviewer? That’s accountability? That’s transparency? Not in my book. In my opinion, that’s both a joke and a confirmation that the Wall Street lobby was hard at work to keep the wolves at bay!!

While my commentary last March focused specifically on Chris Dodd, the simple fact is Barney Frank walked very much in lock step with Dodd on this reform. The ultimate 2000-plus page Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Reform legislation barely makes mention of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Strike you as a little odd? Yes, me too. Very odd!!

Regrettably, America has come to understand that most political and financial reform is ultimately that in name only.

Neither Dodd nor Frank can say that they were not FULLY apprised of ALL the issues within FINRA. I shared all of my concerns regarding FINRA with the Project on Government Oversight early this year. POGO itself was also looking hard at the structural and practical failings of FINRA. Regular readers of Sense on Cents are well aware of my calls for increased transparency for FINRA. Those calls were echoed by POGO but they fell upon deaf ears in Washington. I wrote in my March commentary:

Perhaps Senator Dodd and his colleagues may want to review the Project on Government Oversight’s thoughts on FINRA in which they call the very concept of self-regulation for Wall Street into question. POGO’s letter to four separate Congressional sub-committees can be found here.

Neither Dodd, Frank, nor anybody else on Capitol Hill ever addressed POGO’s letter and grave concerns. That fact should be the final nail in Barney Frank’s political coffin.

Chris Dodd’s political career is over.

I implore the citizens of the 4th District in Massachusetts to do our nation an enormous service and end Barney Frank’s political career this coming Tuesday.

Sense on Cents strongly endorses Sean Bielat!!

Larry Doyle

P.S. I typically shun from this type of commentary. That said,  given the historic nature of this election and this specific race, I believe it is my civic responsibility to share my feelings and a link to my March commentary. Comments, questions, and constructive criticisms are encouraged and appreciated.

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no affiliation or business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. As President of Greenwich Investment Management, an SEC regulated privately held registered investment adviser, I am merely a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

While Franklin Raines, Leland Brendsel, Daniel Mudd, and other Fannie and Freddie execs walked out the door with tens of millions of dollars, our nation is left with a financial sinkhole that will serve as a drag on our economy for years if not generations. How and why did this happen?

Shallow, weak, and financially illiterate legislators from both sides of the aisle were bought off by their crony counterparts at Fannie and Freddie. The costs of those ‘payoffs’ are currently unknown, but will be felt for a long time.

Bloomberg addresses the reality of what will likely be the escalating costs embedded in Fannie and Freddie by writing, Fannie-Freddie Fix at $160 Billion with $1 Trillion Worst Case:

The cost of fixing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that last year bought or guaranteed three-quarters of all U.S. home loans, will be at least $160 billion and could grow to as much as $1 trillion after the biggest bailout in American history.

Fannie and Freddie, now 80 percent owned by U.S. taxpayers, already have drawn $145 billion from an unlimited line of government credit granted to ensure that home buyers can get loans while the private housing-finance industry is moribund. That surpasses the amount spent on rescues of American International Group Inc., General Motors Co. or Citigroup Inc., which have begun repaying their debts.

“It is the mother of all bailouts,” said Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer at Fannie Mae, who is now a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry.

While the losses at Fannie and Freddie continue to mount, do not forget that these losses are not reflected on Uncle Sam’s balance sheet (Fannie and Freddie are in receivership). The fact is Washington at large and the Obama administration specifically do not now have, nor have they ever had, the political will and courage to face the reality of the financial charades created within these organizations. What is the key to measuring the depth of theses sinkholes? Expected losses resulting from future delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures on mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie. What are the prospects on this front?

The composition of the $5.5 trillion of loans guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie suggests that the surge in delinquencies may continue. About $1.98 trillion of the loans were made in states with the nation’s highest foreclosure rates — California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona — and $1.13 trillion were issued in 2006 and 2007, when real estate values peaked. Mortgages on which borrowers owe more than 90 percent of a property’s value total $402 billion.

Fannie and Freddie may suffer additional losses as a result of the Treasury’s effort to prevent foreclosures. Under the program, banks with mortgages owned or guaranteed by the companies must rewrite loan terms to make them easier for borrowers to pay.

How long might this entire mess take to unwind and what are the impacts on our nation’s housing market? The Obama administration’s programs  to modify mortgages are ultimately a stalling tactic to stem the foreclosure process. What does that mean for the future of our housing market? Let’s visit housing and mortgage expert Mark Hanson who recently wrote that at the current pace of foreclosures, it will take 101 months (that’s right, over 8 years!!) to clear the number of loans in the distressed pipeline.

Add it all up, and we are talking potentially a trillion dollar loss and almost a decade for our nation to reconcile the housing mess driven by Fannie and Freddie, facilitated by their Washington cronies.

Nice legacy.

LD

The DOW continues to be on the rise, which is certainly some good news, particularly for investors. Unfortunately, that is not translating into new jobs. Quite the opposite, in fact. For the second week in a row, first time unemployment benefits have risen, this week close to half a million (484,000), a rise of 24,000.

But there is another new high, and this one is troubling indeed. Home foreclosures have had their biggest increase in five years:

A record number of U.S. homes were lost to foreclosure in the first three months of this year, a sign banks are starting to wade through the backlog of troubled home loans at a faster pace, according to a new report.

RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday that the number of U.S. homes taken over by banks jumped 35 percent in the first quarter from a year ago. In addition, households facing foreclosure grew 16 percent in the same period and 7 percent from the last three months of 2009.

Holy smokes. Now is the time when Democrats will blame Bush and the Republicans, as if they have not been in power for over three years. Even more than that, though, is how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run by Democrats. THAT is one of the single biggest issues that led to our current economic crisis, as I have noted before. Now there is this editorial weighing in on this, too, particularly in light of oversight: How Fannie and Freddie Foiled Regulators.

The headline sets the stage for how that was able to happen:

Mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and obstruction of their regulators by Congress and successive presidential administrations played a pivotal role in creating and then bursting the housing bubble at the heart of the economic meltdown of 2008, according to testimony of officials before the congressionally chartered Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Rather than offer a serious discussion of how to reform the two government-sanctioned enterprises (GSEs), however, President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are only offering legislation to punish bank CEOs and stiffen regulations for private sector banks.

In 2006, Dan Mudd, then Fannie Mae’s chief operating officer, wrote in an e-mail to Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines that the GSE desperately needed reform because “the old political reality was that we always won, we took no prisoners … we used to… be able to write, or have written, rules that worked for us.” Mudd’s e-mail was cited in testimony last week before the FCIC by James B. Lockhart, who in 2006 was acting director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the GSE watchdog. Lockhart said OFHEO’s regulatory authority was inadequate because “[Fannie and Freddie] could borrow so cheaply and at unlimited amounts to fund their portfolios because their lenders and rating agencies applied no market discipline.”

Remember Franklin Raines? His name may be familiar to you not for his involvement with housing, but it sure should from his involvement with Barack Obama. Yep, Obama sought advice from Raines on housing while running his campaign. They are buddies.

Back to the editorial:

Lockhart told the FCIC that before the housing bubble burst, he recognized that the GSEs faced serious credit risks and recommended freezing Freddie’s portfolio. That recommendation ran into “quite intense” pushback, according to Lockhart. The neutered watchdog could barely enact any reform at all, he said: “OFHEO was regulating two of the largest and most systematically important U.S. financial institutions and yet its powers were much weaker than bank or even state insurance regulators … OFHEO did not have all the necessary powers to deal with these giant housing enterprises.”

Armando Falcon, Lockhart’s predecessor at OFHEO, told the FCIC that when the understaffed regulator needed additional resources to conduct a special examination of Fannie Mae’s accounting practices, “we encountered more difficulty and delay. Fannie’s lobbyists were on the Hill spreading misinformation about my motives and asserting that the special exam was unnecessary.” Whenever faced with a report with negative connotations about the companies, Fannie’s supporters would launch an assault on OFHEO — from a full investigation of the group to demanding Falcon’s resignation.

So now the question is whether the FCIC will name names in its forthcoming report of those in Congress and the executive branch who protected and advanced Fannie and Freddie, at grievous expense to American taxpayers.

No wonder our housing market is in such dire straits. No wonder our economy is in such dire straits. That companies of this magnitude can be SO mishandled, and receive so little oversight, is mind boggling. And now Obama is going to have the government, the same one that oversaw Fannie and Freddie, oversee our HEALTH CARE?

So, let’s recap: DOW up, yay! Unemployment up, BOO! Home Foreclosures up, BAD! And Debt spiraling out of control with Obama & Co. wanting to spend more and more and more, VERY BAD!!!!

I didn’t use to buy the whole “Tax and Spend Democrats” meme, but there is nothing like cold, hard reality to change a saying to a truism. Yep, we’re in for a world of hurt, alright, and the current Administration seems completely tone deaf to the grave issues facing our nation. Obama will continue hosting summits like this nuclear one that end up accomplishing essentially nothing, talking a lot, but saying nothing, and ignoring the glaring warning signs.

Hold onto your wallets, folks, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride…

UPDATE: Kenoshamarge provided the following video which clearly highlights the problems going on with Fannie and Freddie SIX YEARS ago. The Democrats stonewalled the regulators at every turn:

2004 – Dems Refuse to Reform Freddie & Fannie
Uploaded by Ibn-Khaldun.

Wow – and did you catch Maxine Waters defending “Frank” Raines? And how about Barney Frank denying there is anything wrong? Holy cow. This pretty much says it all. Fannie Mae didn’t follow the rules then, and we are paying for it now…

That would be Mort Zuckerman. If you are not familiar with the name, you surely are with the U.S. News and World Report, of which he is Editor-in-Chief, or the New York Daily News, which he owns (along with other properties). He is a gazillionaire (okay, just a billionaire), and he supported Obama in the 2008 Election. Now, he is just a tad put out as his Op-Ed, “He’s Done Everything Wrong,” indicates (h/t to Andy):

Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.

This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.

In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.

Holy moley! Bear in mind, this man, Mr. Zuckerman, was a SUPPORTER. I sure can’t disagree with his assessment, though. He continues:

Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.

Even that is not the worst part. He could have said, “I know. I promised these things, but let me try to do them one at a time.” You want to deal with health care? Fine. Issue No. 1 with health care was the cost. You know I think it was 37 percent or 33 who were worried about coverage. Fine, I wrote an editorial to this effect. Focus on cost-containment first. But he’s trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much. This is not leadership.

Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.

I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.

You and me both, Mr. Zuckerman. But if I may be so bold, perhaps lofty words are not a prerequisite for the highest office in the land. Just saying. Perhaps you should have looked a little deeper into how much Obama enjoyed the adoring masses, buying the PR spin that he was The One. The problem is, he started to believe it. He believed/believes it really is all about him. But, as a truly great president said, “I feel your pain.”

And speaking of Clinton:

One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”

Again, YES. I hate to keep harping on this, but why were you not capable of seeing this BEFORE?? When Obama regurgitated Deval Patrick’s speeches, that should have been a clue that it was absolutely NOT about policy, but all about politics. When he continually took Hillary Clinton’s policy positions for his own, instead of crafting them himself, that should have been a bit of a clue. But no. Zuckerman, and to many like him, failed to see what was right before their eyes. They believed the hype, too:

I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.

I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?

He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, “This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bullshit. We have a national emergency.” Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.

It’s very sad. It’s really sad.

He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.

Well, for a moment, perhaps, but even in other countries, people are waking up (check out The Telegraph, or Der Spiegel sometime). But here’s the thing: by caring more about appearances than policy, being liked more than fixing problems, Obama, and all who voted for him, have done this country a tremendous disservice. We told you it wasn’t American Idol for which he was running, but the presidency.

There is still some delusion, though:

It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.

I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic.

Did you mention by how much Obama has run up the National Debt? You know, the one he has increased by $1.7 TRILLION since he took office? And he’s looking to increase it by even more. Oh, yippee.

If I may return to another part of Mr. Zuckerman’s editorial, no offense, sir, but OBAMA didn’t have “brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign,” his HANDLERS, Axelrod and Plouffe. did. Had you taken just a few minutes and used the considerable resources at your disposal, you could have looked into his REAL record in IL. You would have seen the shenanigans he employed to even get elected. Now, maybe YOU think that is “brilliant,” but I see it as being an indicator of the man’s moral fiber, and his “win at all costs,” mentality, no matter who he steps on, or what kind of damage he does. Perhaps what Zuckerman is seeing now, is the failure of Axelrod and Plouffe to pull the man off the Campaign Trail and him getting to work. Obama still hasn’t stopped, as he heads off to Ohio on Friday.

Still, at least he is finally getting is. In this interview with Neil Cavuto (h/t to Logistics Monster), he can barely contain himself:

Mr. Zuckerman made some mighty interesting assertions in there, didn’t he, especially in terms of housing? Welcome to the reality based community, sir.

Indeed, slowly but surely, the Kool Aide is wearing off, but not until Obama has done untold damage to out country – IN ONE YEAR. Will he be able to turn it around? I don’t know, but that would presuppose he was capable of introspection, and a willingness to actually listen to the people, as opposed to talk, talk, talking to us (though apparently, he hasn’t talked at us enough – we just don’t get it, you know – because apparently, we are all a bunch of mo-rons not to buy his healthcare bill). Just a thought.

In the meantime, maybe we have all learned a lesson after this presidential election, and after the Massachusetts election. People can be hoodwinked, but not forever. When they wake up, they are none too happy at the lies they were told. That’s why we have elections, and this year is shaping up to be mighty interesting indeed…

Given the fact that this check has been issued, America deserves to know what exactly it is covering. Over and above a full and total exposition of these government sponsored entities, America is in a position to demand certain retributions.

Let’s bang the drum and demand some answers, including:

1. The current valuations of all of Freddie’s and Fannie’s holdings so America can fully evaluate those holdings relative to market prices.

2. The current fees being paid for all services rendered.

3. An independent audit.

4. Why aren’t these stocks delisted immediately? To allow stock in these entities to continue to trade is a total mockery of a legitimate market.

5. Clawback all bonus payments rendered to Franklin Raines, James Johnson, and Leland Brendsel, the executives at Fannie and Freddie who truly plundered these institutions.

6. Immediately extinguish Freddie’s and Fannie’s contingency liabilities to Wall Street firms.

7. How are we to know and appreciate that this blank check is not merely a conduit to deliver slush funds and hush money to every favored friend of the administration?

8. Any market analyst who favorably opines on the housing market in light of this blank check is hereby rendered a total jackass.

Our pursuit of real truth, transparency, and integrity in our political and financial system took a major hit with the issuance of this blank check.

While America signs the check, we must make sure that each and every individual affiliated with this process co-signs the check.

If those in Washington and Wall Street are wondering what is fueling America’s rage, this blank check is nothing short of the Exxon Valdez.

Comments, color, constructive criticism always appreciated.

LD

Ben Bernanke’s testimony over the past two days gives us our best clue yet about where the administration and the Fed are going with bank rescue. And the answer seems to be … nowhere.

Simon Johnson and James Kwak read it the same way I do:

This is another sign of the serious brainpower that has been expended on finding ways to avoid or minimise government ownership of banks, and to avoid the slightest possibility of offending shareholders – shareholders whose shares have positive value primarily because of the expectation of a further government bail-out.

And The Economist’s Free Exchange puts it bluntly:

At this stage, I joked, I’d be just as happy with them just saying, “We have a strategy, we will continue to inject capital to prop up zombie banks indefinitely. That’s pretty much the whole plan and we’re counting on it bringing the financial sector back to life someday, somehow”. Is it just me or is that pretty much what Ben Bernanke said yesterday?

No, it’s not just you.

Well, that’s good to know. I mean, it seems like a whole bunch of us have been saying this makes no sense, and we don’t want our hard-earned taxpaying dollars going down the drain, but we felt like voices crying out in the wilderness. Perhaps we are not alone afterall:

I’d add a political-economy point. Here’s Noam Scheiber, in the new TNR economics blog:

Yesterday afternoon I spoke to a senior Democratic aide in the Senate who repeatedly emphasized that, the way things stand now, it would be almost impossible to get another cent for the banks. Congress has “bailout fatigue,” the aide said.

Indeed. As long as capital injections are seen as a way to bail out the people who got us into this mess (which they are as long as the banks haven’t been put into receivership), the political system won’t, repeat, won’t be willing to come up with enough money to make the system healthy again. At most we’ll get a slow intravenous drip that’s enough to keep the banks shambling along.

More and more, it looks as if we’re headed for the decade of the living dead.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. But like I said, I’m not a major economist who won a Nobel Peace Prize. Krugman is and did, so I’m gonna listen to him.

So speaking of banks wanting more money, guess who is back at the trough asking for more money from us, the taxpayers I’ll give you a hint – it’s an alphabet company. Yep – you got it, AIG:

Hell freakin’ yeah, they’re back. Some nerve, too, if you ask me, especially after their lavish spending ways. They want us to continue to subsidize them when tey have not demonstrated any fiscal restraint or responsibility?? Are you kidding me?

And while I am on this topic, it is high past time for the Democrats to stop blaming this situation totally on the Republicans. I can understand WHY they are trying to convince everyone that they had absolutely NOTHING to do with this, but the reality is that they have been in charge of BOTH Houses of Congress for over two years now. Where was their oversight of the SEC, in its non-existent oversight of people like Bernie “Made-Off”? Where were they when Franklin Raines ran Fannie Mae into the ground (and Raines, who left in disgrace, was one of Obama’s advisers)? Where were they when Jim Johnson ran Freddie Mac into the ground (and we know where Tim Johnson is – he was on Obama’s Veepstakes Search)?

So, yeah – Bush was horrible – we know that. But for the past 2 years, the DEMOCRATS have been the ones in charge of the purse-strings and the oversight, so stop the blame game, start taking some responsibility, and STOP HANDING OUT OUR MONEY LEFT AND RIGHT!!! Enough already!!

And that ESPECIALLY goes for you, Nancy Pelosi, with this new $410 BILLION dollar package chock-full of pork the House is proposing!! ENOUGH!!!

In each of the first two presidential debates, Barack Obama claimed that “Republican deregulation” is responsible for the financial crisis. Most viewers probably accepted this idea, especially because Republicans generally do favor deregulation.

But one essential fact was missing from the senator’s narrative: While there has been significant deregulation in the U.S. economy during the last 30 years, none of it has occurred in the financial sector…

If Sen. Obama had been asked for an example of “Republican deregulation,” he would probably have cited the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA), which has become a popular target for Democrats searching for something to pin on the GOP. This is puzzling. The bill’s key sponsors were indeed Republicans, but the bill was supported by the Clinton administration and signed by President Clinton. The GLBA’s “repeal” of a portion of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 is said to have somehow contributed to the current financial meltdown. Nonsense.

Adopted early in the New Deal, the Glass-Steagall Act separated investment and commercial banking. It prohibited commercial banks from underwriting or dealing in securities, and from affiliating with firms that engaged principally in that business. The GLBA repealed only the second of these provisions, allowing banks and securities firms to be affiliated under the same holding company. Thus J.P. Morgan Chase was able to acquire Bear Stearns, and Bank of America could acquire Merrill Lynch. Nevertheless, banks themselves were and still are prohibited from underwriting or dealing in securities.

Our resident economics expert, LD* agrees:

The repeal of Glass-Steagall (GLBA) is a total non-event in the midst of the current economic turmoil. What this repeal did was allow commercial banks to get more deeply involved with investment banking activities. Thus, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America were able to utilize their significant balance sheets and capital bases to become a force on Wall St. Fast forward ten years and it is those institutions that are now thankfully supporting and bailing out our system.

I asked Mr. Doyle to elaborate, to help make sense of the current situation regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (“F/F”). This also serves to clarify Senator Obama’s ‘non-role’ in working to get us out of this mess and makes clear that John McCain actually stood up when he said he did:

Throughout the 90s and into the early part of this century, F/F were utilizing their significant lobbying power to gain an ever increasing portion of the overall U.S. mortgage market. They had the enormous advantage of being able to borrow at just marginally over U.S, government rates given the “implied” but not explicit backing of Uncle Sam. I mean come on that worst case scenario could never come to pass!!

While F/F were designed to provide liquidity to the market in the form of bundling mortgages into securities, charging a guarantee fee for return of principal to the investors in these Mortgage Backed Securities (“MBS”), and then selling the MBS into the private market, they decided to take a different path. What path was that? Given their ability to borrow at very cheap rates they decided to effectively grow their own internal portfolios. This business model was nothing more than a massively levered hedge fund under the guise of “helping the homeowner”.

In order to grow these portfolios, though, they needed more mortgages. Thus they went directly to the mortgage originators and worked with them to increase the mortgage terms and types that they would buy.

As Freddie and Fannie were executing this strategy, there were 3 groups that stood up and said that this activity was getting out of control. Who were they?? On Capitol Hill, Senator Richard Baker (R-LA) carried the torch. There were actually a number of large banks including Chase and Citi that formed a group called FM Watch that complained that Freddie and Fannie were taking market share from them in their own mortgage origination business. This group was conflicted because the investment banking arms of these institutions were pressured by Freddie and Fannie to quell their complaints or they would refrain from doing business with them. Lastly, the Wall St. Journal was vociferous in their complaints that these entities were getting out of control. Freddie and Fannie responded that they were merely trying to fulfill their mission of providing affordable rates to potential homeowners.

Well how was the impact of Freddie and Fannie on the overall mortgage rates that passed through to the consumer? A number of private studies put the “benefit” of Freddie and Fannie to the American homeowner at between 2 and 4 basis points. In layman’s terms, if a homeowner would have gotten a 6.75% rate then having Fannie/Freddie on the scene helped them get a 6.72% rate.

Now wait a minute, you mean the system was taking all that risk and F/F grew their internal “hedge fund” portfolios of north of 1.5 trillion for a benefit of 3bps. How does that work? Well, the benefits accrued to the shareholders and the executives including Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson.

And as we know, these two gentlemen have been linked to Barack Obama. More good judgment?

As this scenario played out, Senator Baker and then Senator McCain and other Republicans started to get up in arms about the enormous “systemic” risk that was developing. To be fair, Freddie Mac did work to root out the most egregious “predatory lending” that had been undertaken. That said, Freddie was the buyer of the bulk of sub-prime product in the market and without their bid the “overly aggressive” lending would not have taken place to the extent that it did. Fannie was the buyer primarily of Alt-A product which included a lot of the loans without full documentation.

Both F/F were effectively cooking their books. Freddie actually made more money than they were reporting (putting revenue away for future years) while Fannie had truly pathetic risk management and grossly overstated earnings. Both firms reporting of earnings were totally driven by “maximizing” executive bonus packages. Very simply, heads I win, tails you (meaning Uncle Sam and taxpayers) LOSE!!

Even in the midst of this, while Baker, McCain, the WSJ and others were railing on how these agencies were managed, regrettably the necessary regulations and oversights never got out of committee because the Democrats, primarily Sen. Chris Dodd, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Rep. Barney Frank crushed it.

At this juncture, Barack Obama votes present. He was not willing to stand up to his party because he was in bed with Fannie/Freddie and was well on his way to being the second greatest beneficiary of their largesse only after Chris Dodd. To think that this crowd is now going to hold hearings to “review” this crisis is akin to the “inmates running the asylum!!

While Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Tim Howard were ushered out at Fannie and Leland Brendsel was pushed out at Freddie there were no real dramatic changes. Their regulator OFHEO was given some greater oversights but F/F knew that they had their “friends on the Hill” in their back pocket to stymie real regulation.

The American homeowner got their 3bps but is now stuck with a multiple hundred billion dollar price tag along with the price of the systemic risk that went along with it.

One may ask, why did this happen at F/F and not Ginnie Mae? Well, Ginnie does not run a big internal hedge fund and merely bundles FHA and VA insured mortgages, takes a guarantee fee for return of principal to the investor and then lets the securities go into the private market. It works just fine.

Mr. Wallison of WSJ concurs:

Allowing banks and securities firms to affiliate under the same holding company has had no effect on the current financial crisis. None of the investment banks that have gotten into trouble — Bear, Lehman, Merrill, Goldman or Morgan Stanley — were affiliated with commercial banks. And none of the banks that have major securities affiliates — Citibank, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase, to name a few — are among the banks that have thus far encountered serious financial problems. Indeed, the ability of these banks to diversify into non-banking activities has been a source of their strength.

Most important, the banks that have succumbed to financial problems — Wachovia, Washington Mutual and IndyMac, among others — got into trouble by investing in bad mortgages or mortgage-backed securities, not because of the securities activities of an affiliated securities firm. Federal Reserve regulations significantly restrict transactions between banks and their affiliates.

Most significantly,

[O]n the matter of deregulation and the financial crisis, Sen. Obama should consider his own complicity in the failure of Congress to adopt legislation that might have prevented the subprime meltdown.

In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it. To get the bill to a vote in the Senate, a few Democratic votes were necessary to limit debate. This was a time for the leadership Sen. Obama says he can offer, but neither he nor any other Democrat stepped forward.

Instead, by his own account, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary, allegedly putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. This is revealing; if true, it indicates Sen. Obama knew there was a problem with subprime lending — but was unwilling to confront his own party by pressing for legislation to control it.

As a demonstration of character and leadership capacity, it bears a strong resemblance to something else in Sen. Obama’s past: voting present.

Once again Senator Obama uses an effective sound bite in the debates without the facts to back it up. We have seen consistently that Rep. Barney Frank, Senator Chris Dodd, Rep. Maxine Waters, et al, were shouting that no tighter regulations were needed.

Since Obama seems so eager to promise he will build consensus and reach across the aisle, and that Republicans are the party of good ideas – where was his leadership when we needed him? What has he done to show anyone that he has the spine and willingness to make the tough decisions or take a stand? Or the knowledge to lead this nation in a crisis such as the ones we now face both at home and abroad?

Senator Obama once again votes “present.”

Both Mr. Wallison and Mr. Doyle called this one exactly right.

[*LD was an institutional trader of mortgage securities at First Boston and Bear Stearns for 15 yrs in the ’80s and ’90s and then was the national sales manager for mortgage products at JP Morgan Chase from 2000-2006. He is currently a private investor and involved in a variety of not-for-profit activities.]

Obama has a friend or associate that is questionable.

Video or articles surface of Obama thanking them, supporting them, writing a blurb for their book, organizing events for them, campaigning for them, campaigning with them, playing poker with them, serving on boards with them, buying homes with them, dining with them, praising them, using them to prove his christian faith, or hiring them.

Obama then denies their tight relationship – brushes the association off as *a guy in the ‘hood*, claims they are someone who doesn’t advise him, minimizes the actual number of times he attended church, says he can’t vet his vetters, or flat out lies.

Obama THEN completely denies any knowledge of who they really are, denies ever knowing who they were, what they said, what they did, how corrupt they were, any fraud they were up to, and what they were preaching.

People – this isn’t a coincidence. One or two nefarious associations can be examined and written off. But there is a looooooooong list of people that Obama is close to – whether they be family members, business partners, friends or co-workers who are either radicals, criminals, racist, or anti-American.

This list, compiled by The Daily Antikos, is great, but forgot a few people/organizations (that I added at the end):

Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s Pastor for 20 years. Obama did not distance himself until it was political.

Father Pflager – Speaks at Obama’s former Church (only after embarrassment) and Obama gave him money & here they are in 2000.

Bill Ayers – Terrorist. Member of the Weather Underground. Killed Americans. Launched Obama’s Political Career.

Tony Rezko – bought land and sold it to Obama at a discount. Oh yeah, and he is a convicted felon.

Raila Odinga – Defeated in his bid for the Kenyan Presidency. Led Supporters in a Violent Uprising. Obama Campaigned for him in 2006. (at tax payer expense)

Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour – I can’t even get started. This is Obama’s Political Grand-father, and his intentions do not seem to be too honorable.

Franklin Raines – Cooked the Books at Fannie Mae. Obama hired him as an advisor on Housing and Urban Affairs.

Frank Marshall David – Communist Obama Mentor.

Emil Jones, Jr. – Ugh… Just Read It.

Rev James Meeks – Spiritual Mentor

Rashid Khalidi – PLO Terrorist.

Here are a few more:

Larry Walsh is the Will County (IL) County Executive, good buddy, political confidante, and frequent poker player with Barack Obama. He is currently being investigated by the FBI.

Kwame Kilpatrick, former mayor of Detroit, convicted felon, has been charged with 10 felonies including perjury, obstruction of justice and assaulting a public safety officer. He will be sentenced October 28th. In June, Kwame Kilpatrick gave Barack Obama his endorsement as a Democratic Party Superdelegate.

Gov. Blagojevich, who is under investigation.

Marilyn Katz, a former member of the ’60′s anti-war group SDS, led protestors against the police outside the Democratic Convention in 1968. Protestors threw nails in the street to impede the police and clashed with police on this occasion and others. Katz has said of her activities that she wanted the U.S. to become a socialist paradise. She is a close friend of Barack Obama. Katz is a member of Obama’s national finance committee.

James Johnson, Former Fannie Mae executive who was vetting candidates for Obama for his VP but had to resign. Johnson is drawing fire over his jumbo home loans from Countrywide Financial, a major actor in the subprime mortgage mess, that may have been below market rates.

Louis Farrakhan, leader of the NOI. Obama helped to organize his Million Man March in ’95, and he is tight with Reverend Wright and Phleger.

Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac – Obama has recieved the most donations, second only to Dodd, from these companies, and also was thanked, in part with the Congressional Black Caucus, for *being like family* with Fannie and Freddi.

ACORN – Obama is the former Director of Illinois Project Vote, and they have been raided and charged for fraudulent voter registration practices. They are also linked to some of the above associations of Obama’s.

Michelle Obama. *First time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.* Nuff said.

How does someone hang out with that many people, who are, as I said, criminals, radicals, racists or just plain anti-American, and not share some of those characteristics?

And the best excuse Obama can ever come up with is *they aren’t the person I thought I knew* or *I never heard them say those things* or *I did not know they were a domestic terrorist when I was having my first fundraiser in their living room*.

Are we to believe that he truly didn’t know, that he is that uninformed, that naive, that, dare I say, stupid? Or is he just lying?

Why would someone who associates with all those people WANT to be President? And more importantly, why would anyone WANT him to be President?

I just don’t get 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.