I suggest everyone go to govtrack.us and look at John McCain’s record on attempting to reform the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. On May 25, 2006, John McCain urges:
…Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
John McCain co-sponsored S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. Unfortunately, it did not make it out of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee.
This committee is now chaired by Christopher Dodd [D, CT]. If we examine Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008, the largest recipient was none other than Christopher Dodd.
#1 by Dan Wayment on September 18, 2008 - 12:01 am
Quote
It was a Republican Congress. The bill died at the end of the 109th Congress
it says:
“Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 – Amends the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 to establish:
(1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac);”
Get that:
“1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)”
This bill was transfering any remaining oversight FROM the government TO an INDEPENDENT Agency! That meant it had NO FEDERAL OVERSIGHT AT ALL!
#2 by Dan Wayment on September 18, 2008 - 12:10 am
Quote
And your second part is another fib!
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT
$133,900
2. Kerry, John S D-MA
$111,000
3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY
$75,550
According to the New York Times, John McCain has received $169,000 from Fannie and Freddie for his 2008 campaign. Why is he omitted from this list? Is there something I’m missing?
It seems to me he got more than Dodd. And was Dodd the Chairman of the 109th Congress, or was it a Republican?
Pingback: McCain's Attempts to Reform FNMA & FHLMC Shot Down in 2006... - Conservative Republican Discussion Forums
#3 by Jackie on September 18, 2008 - 1:21 am
Quote
Dan WaymIn -response from PHH:
“Our data goes back to 1989, where applicable. In Obama’s case, our data includes his 2004 campaign for the Senate, his tenure in the Senate and his 2008 presidential fundraising–in other words, all contributions to Obama from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac associated with his entire congressional career.”
#4 by Doug Terpstra on September 18, 2008 - 10:49 am
Quote
McCain, as water carrier for S&L crooks, whose wife “earned” a $million in profit from business with Charlie Keating, now claims he’s for closing the barn doors. He was for deregulation for 26 years before he was against it yesterday. As Reagan proved, the dumb sheep are instinctively drawn to the macho hombre with the biggest jock cup who insists that “the fundamentals are sound”, never mind what his hands are doing behind his back.
#5 by Jackie on September 18, 2008 - 3:19 pm
Quote
Actually, you have to watch Barack’s speeches and McCain’s speeches to be clear on what was said. The fundamental are sound, was only part of the sentence. He also said that we should never get in this situation again in the US. He meant fundamentals to be American workers. Barack clipped part of the sentence, as do alot of politicians, and took a cheap shot. People who don’t listen to both of the parties speeches are considered uninformed. Our research includes both candidates and their speeches and it takes alot of time to listen to all of them. We work hard to get both sides before writing. We don’t do this for money. We do this for love of our country and wanting what is the best for all. This is also why we read right and left wing books and check there facts.
#6 by icposse2000 on September 19, 2008 - 1:43 pm
Quote
I’m sorry, but the ‘fundamentals are sound’ regardless of context, is an absolutely idiotic thing to say. Even if he was referring to the American workers, which is debatable, the American workers are going to be up the proverbial creek if the whole financial system implodes (which it came very very close to doing). The American workers were ‘fundamentally strong’ at the beginning of the Great Depression, too…but when the financial system crashes it takes everyone else with it.
In order to avoid that, we (the taxpayers) now get to take on roughly 500 billion-1 trillion in ‘bad loans’ …of which nobody really understands how bad they are because of the accounting tricks designed to package and repackage risky loans.
Sorry, I don’t care how you spin it, the fundamentals of this economy are hardly strong. We need real regulation and reform on Wall Street, and a person who’s supported deregulation all his life up until three days ago just isn’t the guy to get it done.
Thanks, but no thanks.
#7 by Jackie on September 20, 2008 - 4:22 pm
Quote
Having no federal oversight at all is good. A trust, in my humble opinion, who knows what they are talking about would have been much better. That’s reform. That way, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have saved that payoff money and maybe somebody who knows something about the system could have helped out. ARM loans and other deceptive practices should have been stopped a long time ago. I realize that not all people have sense in their heads, but I know I was raised to believe you couldn’t own unless you could produce at least 20% of the amount of purchase. Some would argue higher. This is part of Creative accounting.
If there is federal oversight, the laws should be made upon recommendation by an independent bipartisan trust.
#8 by bokonon on September 20, 2008 - 6:19 pm
Quote
If having no federal oversight at all is good, perhaps we should then just shut down and pack up the entire government and let big business run the country.
Oh, uh, wait a minute…
#9 by Ben on September 20, 2008 - 10:15 pm
Quote
bokonon, I recommend that you read the US Constitution. Its Articles enumerate the proper functions of the federal government. The intent was to limit the government to only these functions, because the protection of individual rights requires strict limits on the government’s power. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it permit the federal government to function as an oversight agency over banks, securities, or the monetary system. In fact, to further emphasize the intent of the Constitution, the following amendments were added.
Rather than packing up the entire government, we should uphold its Constitutional powers, and ensure that it does not overstep its bounds. We must ensure that the government does not abrogate all those non-enumerated rights, which have been reserved to the states or to the people. It is precisely the misguided notion that the government “runs the country” that is in error. The country is there to protect individual rights (freedom); not for its citizens to be run by anyone. The government is merely responsible with its narrow set of duties, as enumerated by the Constitution.
#10 by Brett on September 21, 2008 - 11:20 am
Quote
Based on Article I Section 8 of the Constitution it can be argued that the government does have the power to regulate banks and the monetary system. Since modern banks operate across state borders Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce can be invoked. Regarding monetary regulation, Congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.
#11 by Terry Poupart on September 21, 2008 - 7:32 pm
Quote
So, our liberal friends seem to believe that we should simply drink the political cool-aid being served up by ‘The One’ and ignore the FACT that John McCain had co-sponsored reform legislation that might have prevented this crisis.
At the same time ‘The One’ was quickly becoming the second biggest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bribery. Exactly what has ‘The One’ actually done that would make us believe he ever intended to do anything about these greedy institutions other than take their money and hire them as his advisers?
Nothing! Once again, ‘The One’ is all style and no substance. The idiotic hypocrasy of his hypnotized followers is truly frightening. It’s as if the lunatic-left have finally went off and established a cult that they are intent on replacing our democracy with.
#12 by Jeff on September 22, 2008 - 9:29 am
Quote
Its the same old story with the Dems and their new found leader Mr “I vote present” Obama. Like Terry said…all style and no substance. They love to be critical when others try and actually do something, like McCain did in co-sponsoring bill S.190 in 2005, to help a situation while at the same time they do absolutely nothing….well except take the cash from the system. They are bottom feeders.
#13 by r on September 22, 2008 - 3:22 pm
Quote
You lied. Or spun it to make a false impression. Sen. Shelby GOP was chair of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee when the bill died in Committee.
Why did you do that? How about some honesty/ Integirty?
A correction?
#14 by Steve on September 23, 2008 - 4:46 am
Quote
Folks,
Fannie/Freddie didn’t give a red cent to any politicians, because it’s illegal for a company to do that. The figures you see referenced are donations from individuals that work for those companies. All those figures mean is that there are more politically active Democrats at Fannie/Freddie than there are Republicans.
From the Federal Election Committee:
§ 441b. Contributions or expenditures by national banks,
corporations, or labor organizations
(a) It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized
by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, or for any corporation whatever, or any labor organization, to make a contribution
or expenditure in connection with any election at which presidential
and vice presidential electors or a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, Congress are to be voted for, or in connection with any primary election
or political convention
or caucus held to select candidates for any of the foregoing offices, or for any candidate, political committee, or other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this section, or any officer or any director of any corporation or any national
bank or any officer of any labor organization to consent to any contribution or expenditure by the corporation, national bank, or labor organization, as the case may be, prohibited by this section.
http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf
#15 by T-Bone on September 23, 2008 - 8:22 am
Quote
I’ve read both sides and am convinced that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton created the housing bubble and led to its ultimate demise.
Bush, the idiot that he is, showed a complete lack of leadership by not fixing the problem. He was no doubt hoping to ride the wave and let the next guy deal with it. Oops, didn’t make it.
Members of both parties benefitted financially and looked the other way. They are ALL a bunch of crooks and neither party cares a damn about you or me. Your team jersey is just a billboard to help them line their own pockets with money.
The only people in congress that showed any signs of real leadership during this crisis were the sponsors and co-sponsors of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. It’s a matter of record and its indisputable. This group showed a little leadership, but not enough to move it forward, but after all, who would vote against the money train. John McCain’s comments can be viewed here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190
Does anyone have a government record documenting any sign of leadership from Obama on this issue?
#16 by Ben on September 23, 2008 - 10:31 pm
Quote
This article ‘Wall Street’ No Longer Exists by Alan Reynolds gives a sobering analysis of regulatory reform’s role in the downfall of Wall Street.
#17 by TC on September 24, 2008 - 1:35 pm
Quote
T-Bone, just read the NYT article published Sept 11, 2003 titled “New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae” by Stephen Labaton. Before calling Bush an idiot, see the facts for yourself. See what Bush proposed and how the Democratic congress responded. The most revealing part of the article was the quote of Barney Frank: “These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-are not facing a financial crisis.”
#18 by Ben on September 24, 2008 - 3:11 pm
Quote
Thanks, TC. I’m promoting the NYT article to a new posting to emphasize the point.
http://www.jacquelinecady.com/index.php/2008/09/24/bush-proposed-oversight-of-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae/
#19 by Nancy on September 26, 2008 - 2:07 pm
Quote
As to the reliability of the New York Times as a source of information: The New York Times published as fact the false rumor that Sarah and Todd Palin were members of the Alaskan Independence Party. Verifying “facts” such as this one prior to publishing it is taught in journalism 101. At least it used to be. The New York Times is a liberal rag, not a legitimate news source. It deliberately printed a lie in the hopes that irrevocable damage would be done to the Palin nomination before a retraction would have to be printed.
#20 by Stanford Matthews on September 28, 2008 - 8:09 pm
Quote
I am currently researching this topic on the following question. If Hagel and Dole sponsored the bill 1/26/2005 and McCain signed on 3 months later how come it never made it out of committee with both Hagel and Dole on the committee?
Since McCain mentioned this in the recent debate, I thought it was a good thing. After seeing the curren committee membership and raising some suspicions, I checked the 2005 membership which differs slightly. It was a GOP majority then and I want to know who dropped the ball on this one.
#21 by AGoodBuzz on October 1, 2008 - 6:16 pm
Quote
Sorry T-Bone, but that legislation that Clinton signed was veto proof, Senate 90-8-1 and the House: 362-57-15.
#22 by SergeantMajor on October 24, 2008 - 4:47 pm
Quote
Dan Wayment
I just want to point something out. The purpose of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 was to appoint an independent agency to conduct the check and balances on the two GSE, Goverment Sponsored Enterprise. The institutions which where government run had a S5.2 Trillion debt and was tagged as a systemic problem under goverment control. Appointed an independent agency to monitor the two GSE is prudent. Allowing the government to monitor itself after the Disastrous failure to monitor the two GSE in the first place is the same logic to make it voluntary for Financial Institutions to voluntary disclose their financial management and transaction. The purpose of The Reform Act of 2005 was to take control out of government for the two GSE and place it in an Independent Agency to monitor, ensure tranparency, and prevent the forcasted systemic problems that have been raised by the Bush Administration, Treasury Secretary, the FED Charmain, and others.
Why did the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 fail. Republicans proposed S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 it never made it out of committee.