New York Times 2003: Dems Oppose Bush Plan To Rein in Fannie and Freddie

-Cp

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2004
2,911
362
48
Earth
New York Times 2003: Dems Oppose Bush Plan To Rein in Fannie and Freddie | The Patriot Room

The New York Times from September 11, 2003.

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

”There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration’s proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies’ exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Obama’s current mortgage and housing advisor, Franklin Raines, was at the helm at the time of Fannie Mae at the time. Keep in mind, this is the guy that ran the thing right into the ground in the succeeding years.

Despite the attempt to curb the waste, fraud, and abuse, some Democrats were not on board. Barney Frank really looks like a genius on this one. And this guy was the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Yeah we need more stuff taken over and managed by the Federal Government. Those guys are really good at finance and mortages. Maybe when Obama wins he can make Franklin Raines the Treasury Secretary. That would sure be a change. Let’s bring crime, corruption, and mismanagement to the Cabinet level.
 
It's no surprise that none of the USMB resident liberals have attempted to choke this one down.. LOL
 
another blog? that doesn't even CITE the fucking NYT article itself?


profound!


:lol:
 
it said some dems opposed. so what happened? did it go to vote? did all repubs support it? why didnt it get through? id like to see the whole article, but didnt see it linked on that page
 
it said some dems opposed. so what happened? did it go to vote? did all repubs support it? why didnt it get through? id like to see the whole article, but didnt see it linked on that page

yeah, that's my question... in 2003 the Repubs were in control of the House and Senate... how did it not pass?

and remind us again which candidate for President is the DEREGULATOR? :D
 
this is the 2nd thread on this topic....look for the other one, you might see a liberal response....

my question is, do you have a link that shows the repubs of oxley and shelby this to a vote on the floor and how people voted in both the congress and the senate?? i think i might have gotten an answer on the other thread but i don't remember what it was....???
 
yeah, that's my question... in 2003 the Repubs were in control of the House and Senate... how did it not pass?

and remind us again which candidate for President is the DEREGULATOR? :D

they were in control of the house and senate pretty much the same way the dems control it now-barely, and so couldn't get this bill through in the face of what i assume was Democratic opposition- unless Bernie Sanders has a lot more pull than I'm willing to believe.
 
they were in control of the house and senate pretty much the same way the dems control it now-barely, and so couldn't get this bill through in the face of what i assume was Democratic opposition- unless Bernie Sanders has a lot more pull than I'm willing to believe.

any specifics as to why they wouldn't push it through? was it tied to something else? seems to me if the Dems are tagged as being FOR big government and regulation, they'd want to push it through...
 
they were in control of the house and senate pretty much the same way the dems control it now-barely, and so couldn't get this bill through in the face of what i assume was Democratic opposition- unless Bernie Sanders has a lot more pull than I'm willing to believe.

you know what assuming does.

i want to know what happened. not what you assume happened
 
any specifics as to why they wouldn't push it through? was it tied to something else? seems to me if the Dems are tagged as being FOR big government and regulation, they'd want to push it through...

it sounds like it would have made it more difficult to get a mortgage w/o a sizeable downpayment, which would hurt lower income people. but without the full story we cant know for certain
 
any specifics as to why they wouldn't push it through? was it tied to something else? seems to me if the Dems are tagged as being FOR big government and regulation, they'd want to push it through...

can't help you, I only looked at the make up of the senate and house at the time. i suspect it didn't get passed because the Dems didn't want it to, but that's just the fastest horse, as my esteemed colleague manifold would say.
 
You are wasting your time. Liberals never admit to their own parties massive failures. they will just dig and dig and try and find a way to blame it on Republicans.

Even though Clearly the Dems stopped any attempts to reform Fanny and Freddie, and now they have the balls to stand there, lie right to our faces, and say they have nothing to do with the current economic crisis.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: -Cp
You are wasting your time. Liberals never admit to their own parties massive failures. they will just dig and dig and try and find a way to blame it on Republicans.

Even though Clearly the Dems stopped any attempts to reform Fanny and Freddie, and now they have the balls to stand there, lie right to our faces, and say they have nothing to do with the current economic crisis.

yeah, asking for more information than what is posted on a republican blog is just avoiding the truth. not everyone believes everything they hear without more proof. :doubt:
 
You are wasting your time. Liberals never admit to their own parties massive failures. they will just dig and dig and try and find a way to blame it on Republicans.

Even though Clearly the Dems stopped any attempts to reform Fanny and Freddie, and now they have the balls to stand there, lie right to our faces, and say they have nothing to do with the current economic crisis.

yeah, the republicans would never lie to us. they're different; they're here to help.

hahahahahahaha
right?
 
I think this is a great post.

And what it tell us doesn't surprise me, frankly.

People understood that Fannie Mae was getting out of control for some time.

I rather wish the article had enumerated the proposed changed more clearly, though.

It doesn't really tell us, except tangentially, what changes were proposed, so much as what it does NOT propose to change.

Here's an example of what I mean:

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

Okay, that's what it doesn't change, what does it propose to change?

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

See my point here?

The article really doesn't tell us much about what changes the POTUS proposed except possibly three things:

1. The treasury takes over regulation from Congress

2. That the President not (?) select five of its 19 directors? (that makes like zero sense, but that seems to be what it says)

3. That the regulators have more authority to approve it's products.


Now of the three, # 3 looks like one that might have could have prevented some of the crappy mortgages they were willing to turn into bond.

So, FWIW, YES, I DO think this is a significant smoking gun leading at least SOME of us to admit what many of us have been suggesting all along...

..that this economic mess has many fathers...on BOTH sides of the aisle.
 
It's no surprise that none of the USMB resident liberals have attempted to choke this one down.. LOL

Odd this kind of rhetoric does not match what the gop on tv are saying. not like them to have a problem placing blame on the democrats, even when its not true.

Maybe the gop don't want to get caught lying again. The devil is in the details. For one, it sounds like this plan wanted to grow the government. Second, anytime the gop come up with a bill, it usually won't fix anything and will make things worse.

Look at the patriot act. The name was deceiving. No child left behind.

The gop have run out of ideas and its time to step aside.

On every economic policy, dems are better at the economy. unemployment, inflation, deficits, consumer confidence. The republicans are just good at wedge issues, dirty politics, fear and stealing elections.

If only they governed as well.
 

Forum List

Back
Top