CRA Not to Blame for Housing Debacle

[boedicca]

FM/FM were protected by Barnie Frank, who had far more influence over their consumption of taxpayer dollars than did Bush, although he is also to blame.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i agree, and it was the republican hud that controlled fannie and freddie from 2001-2008. The hud secretary is a cabinet level post reporting to gwb at that time.

you do mean from 2001 until 2006?

No, I mean 2001 - 2008, which is how long GWB served as president, and HUD is a CABINET level post appointed by the president. Fannie and Freddie goals were set by HUD.

No you mean 2001-2006, Congress was controlled by the democrats. Congress legislates laws and controls spending.

 

[finebead]

FM/FM were protected by Barnie Frank, who had far more influence over their consumption of taxpayer dollars than did Bush, although he is also to blame.

Barney Frank had as much power in the house in 2001 - 2006 as Michelle Backman or Eric Cantor or Boehner did in 2006 - 2008, which is to say, none. The house passed a bill in 2005 to regulate F & F by an overwhelming majority of BOTH parties, so no, BF did not have much power then, it is a right wing myth so they can try to impotently deny accountability for their failure to govern while they had the majorities in the house, senate, and the white house was all repub.

Unless you can show me a bill Frank got passed or what he ACTUALLY DID that demonstrated exercise of his "influence" other than talking that went nowhere (like the out of power repubs in 06-08, they did nothing but talk meaningless talk).

 

[finebead]

you do mean from 2001 until 2006?

No, I mean 2001 - 2008, which is how long GWB served as president, and HUD is a CABINET level post appointed by the president. Fannie and Freddie goals were set by HUD.

No you mean 2001-2006, Congress was controlled by the democrats. Congress legislates laws and controls spending.

What do you not understand about "Cabinet level position"? That means it is in the "president's cabinet", like secretary of defense, and secretary of state, and then you've got the HUD secretary. Cabinet level posts are filled by the president appointing people.

HUD History
History
1937 U.S. Housing Act of 1937
1965 Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 creates HUD as Cabinet-level agency.

HUD History/U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

So, the fact that the repubs lost the congress in 2006 has NO bearing on the fact that the repubs were in charge of HUD in 2006, 2007, and 2008, because the HUD secretary was appointed by president Bush, and president Bush was still the president until Jan, 2009.

Here is more proof:

Alphonso Roy Jackson (born September 9, 1945) served as the 13th United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He was nominated by President George W. Bush on January 28, 2004 and unanimously confirmed by the Senate on March 31, 2004. On March 31, 2008, Jackson announced his resignation, effective April 18, 2008.

Alphonso Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, it is absolutely clear that the repubs controlled HUD in 2006, 2007, and in 2008.

 

[boedicca]

You don't get that CONGRESS CONTROLS THE BUDGET that funded FM/FM.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, I mean 2001 - 2008, which is how long GWB served as president, and HUD is a CABINET level post appointed by the president. Fannie and Freddie goals were set by HUD.

No you mean 2001-2006, Congress was controlled by the democrats. Congress legislates laws and controls spending.

What do you not understand about "Cabinet level position"? That means it is in the "president's cabinet", like secretary of defense, and secretary of state, and then you've got the HUD secretary. Cabinet level posts are filled by the president appointing people.

HUD History
History
1937 U.S. Housing Act of 1937
1965 Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 creates HUD as Cabinet-level agency.

HUD History/U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

So, the fact that the repubs lost the congress in 2006 has NO bearing on the fact that the repubs were in charge of HUD in 2006, 2007, and 2008, because the HUD secretary was appointed by president Bush, and president Bush was still the president until Jan, 2009.

Here is more proof:

Alphonso Roy Jackson (born September 9, 1945) served as the 13th United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He was nominated by President George W. Bush on January 28, 2004 and unanimously confirmed by the Senate on March 31, 2004. On March 31, 2008, Jackson announced his resignation, effective April 18, 2008.

Alphonso Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, it is absolutely clear that the repubs controlled HUD in 2006, 2007, and in 2008.

Congress as I said controls spending.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

FM/FM were protected by Barnie Frank, who had far more influence over their consumption of taxpayer dollars than did Bush, although he is also to blame.

Barney Frank had as much power in the house in 2001 - 2006 as Michelle Backman or Eric Cantor or Boehner did in 2006 - 2008, which is to say, none. The house passed a bill in 2005 to regulate F & F by an overwhelming majority of BOTH parties, so no, BF did not have much power then, it is a right wing myth so they can try to impotently deny accountability for their failure to govern while they had the majorities in the house, senate, and the white house was all repub.

Unless you can show me a bill Frank got passed or what he ACTUALLY DID that demonstrated exercise of his "influence" other than talking that went nowhere (like the out of power repubs in 06-08, they did nothing but talk meaningless talk).

Freddie and fannie were regulated? Do you have a link to this?

 

[finebead]

the historical illiteracy / revisionism on the part of the big government types is quite thick in this thread.

Here's a reality check:

of course, the new federal standards couldn’t just apply to minorities. If they could pay back loans under these terms, then so could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly, in other words, these became the new standards in the industry. In 1999, the new york times reported that fannie mae and freddie mac were easing credit requirements for mortgages it purchased from lenders, and as the housing market boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a vengeance. between 2004 and 2007, fannie mae and freddie mac became the biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages from all kinds of applicants, white and minority, and most of these loans were based on the lending standards promoted by the government.

realclearmarkets - articles - the long road to slack lending standards


the one root cause of the mortgage fueled financial bubble is big government interference in private transactions. In order to compensate (bribe) the financial industry to comply with loosened lending standards, the feds derisked them with taxpayer money via fannie mae and freddie mac.

i agree, and it was the republican hud that controlled fannie and freddie from 2001-2008. The hud secretary is a cabinet level post reporting to gwb at that time.

you do mean from 2001 until 2006?

I said it was the republican HUD that controlled fannie and freddie from 2001-2008, and you said "do you mean 2001-2006" indicating that I made a mistake, and I demonstrated that the Bush appointed the cabinet level HUD secretary who served all during his administration, which spanned 2001-2008. I am right on this, and you are not correct in your disagreement.

 

[finebead]

the historical illiteracy / revisionism on the part of the big government types is quite thick in this thread.

Here's a reality check:

of course, the new federal standards couldn’t just apply to minorities. If they could pay back loans under these terms, then so could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly, in other words, these became the new standards in the industry. In 1999, the new york times reported that fannie mae and freddie mac were easing credit requirements for mortgages it purchased from lenders, and as the housing market boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a vengeance. between 2004 and 2007, fannie mae and freddie mac became the biggest purchasers of subprime mortgages from all kinds of applicants, white and minority, and most of these loans were based on the lending standards promoted by the government.

realclearmarkets - articles - the long road to slack lending standards


the one root cause of the mortgage fueled financial bubble is big government interference in private transactions. In order to compensate (bribe) the financial industry to comply with loosened lending standards, the feds derisked them with taxpayer money via fannie mae and freddie mac.

i agree, and it was the republican hud that controlled fannie and freddie from 2001-2008. The hud secretary is a cabinet level post reporting to gwb at that time.

you do mean from 2001 until 2006?

You don't get that CONGRESS CONTROLS THE BUDGET that funded FM/FM.

Congress was controlled by the repubs from 2001 -2006. What did Frank actually DO in that timeframe when the repubs controlled ALL committee heads, what legislation came to a vote, etc.? Show me specific examples of what Frank DID that directly contributed to the financial crisis (other than run his mouth, which is not actually DOING anything, see Bachman, Cantor, Boehner the from 2006-2008, when they ran their mouths but did not actually DO anything as they never had the votes to do anything).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i agree, and it was the republican hud that controlled fannie and freddie from 2001-2008. The hud secretary is a cabinet level post reporting to gwb at that time.

you do mean from 2001 until 2006?

I said it was the republican HUD that controlled fannie and freddie from 2001-2008, and you said "do you mean 2001-2006" indicating that I made a mistake, and I demonstrated that the Bush appointed the cabinet level HUD secretary who served all during his administration, which spanned 2001-2008. I am right on this, and you are not correct in your disagreement.

Who controls spending for any government agency

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i agree, and it was the republican hud that controlled fannie and freddie from 2001-2008. The hud secretary is a cabinet level post reporting to gwb at that time.

you do mean from 2001 until 2006?

You don't get that CONGRESS CONTROLS THE BUDGET that funded FM/FM.

Congress was controlled by the repubs from 2001 -2006. What did Frank actually DO in that timeframe when the repubs controlled ALL committee heads, what legislation came to a vote, etc.? Show me specific examples of what Frank DID that directly contributed to the financial crisis (other than run his mouth, which is not actually DOING anything, see Bachman, Cantor, Boehner the from 2006-2008, when they ran their mouths but did not actually DO anything as they never had the votes to do anything).

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UZ9l_AxKjA&feature=related[/ame]

 

[finebead]

FM/FM were protected by Barnie Frank, who had far more influence over their consumption of taxpayer dollars than did Bush, although he is also to blame.

Barney Frank had as much power in the house in 2001 - 2006 as Michelle Backman or Eric Cantor or Boehner did in 2006 - 2008, which is to say, none. The house passed a bill in 2005 to regulate F & F by an overwhelming majority of BOTH parties, so no, BF did not have much power then, it is a right wing myth so they can try to impotently deny accountability for their failure to govern while they had the majorities in the house, senate, and the white house was all repub.

Unless you can show me a bill Frank got passed or what he ACTUALLY DID that demonstrated exercise of his "influence" other than talking that went nowhere (like the out of power repubs in 06-08, they did nothing but talk meaningless talk).

Freddie and fannie were regulated? Do you have a link to this?

A majority of repub and dems passed a Fannie reform bill in 2005, HR 1461, it passed 331 - 90, so Frank's influence was NOT strong.

Oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (H.R. 1461)

The House voted 331-90 to establish a new agency to regulate the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have been accused of poor financial management in recent years. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are privately owned, congressionally chartered financial institutions created to support federal policies to assure ready availability of financing for housing. Some opponents of the legislation argued that even stronger oversight authority, such as that contained in a competing Senate bill, is required. Congressman Platts voted against H.R. 1461 and in favor of stronger oversight provisions.

http://www.house.gov/platts/enews/2005-11.shtml

The companion bill, S 190 was never voted on in the senate, because the repub senate, lead by Bill Frist, never brought it for a vote although it was passed out of committee. It was never brought for a vote, because it did not have enough republican votes to even get a simple majority although the repubs held a majority in the senate at the time. It failed due to lack of hard republican support.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Barney Frank had as much power in the house in 2001 - 2006 as Michelle Backman or Eric Cantor or Boehner did in 2006 - 2008, which is to say, none. The house passed a bill in 2005 to regulate F & F by an overwhelming majority of BOTH parties, so no, BF did not have much power then, it is a right wing myth so they can try to impotently deny accountability for their failure to govern while they had the majorities in the house, senate, and the white house was all repub.

Unless you can show me a bill Frank got passed or what he ACTUALLY DID that demonstrated exercise of his "influence" other than talking that went nowhere (like the out of power repubs in 06-08, they did nothing but talk meaningless talk).

Freddie and fannie were regulated? Do you have a link to this?

A majority of repub and dems passed a Fannie reform bill in 2005, HR 1461, it passed 331 - 90, so Frank's influence was NOT strong.

Oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (H.R. 1461)

The House voted 331-90 to establish a new agency to regulate the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have been accused of poor financial management in recent years. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are privately owned, congressionally chartered financial institutions created to support federal policies to assure ready availability of financing for housing. Some opponents of the legislation argued that even stronger oversight authority, such as that contained in a competing Senate bill, is required. Congressman Platts voted against H.R. 1461 and in favor of stronger oversight provisions.

E-Newsletter from Congressman Todd Russell Platts

The companion bill, S 190 was never voted on in the senate, because the repub senate, lead by Bill Frist, never brought it for a vote although it was passed out of committee. It was never brought for a vote, because it did not have enough republican votes to even get a simple majority although the repubs held a majority in the senate at the time. It failed due to lack of hard republican support.

Exactly what happen?
Introduced Apr 5, 2005
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee May 25, 2005
Amendments (9 proposed) View Amendments
Passed House Oct 26, 2005
Senate Vote (did not occur)
Signed by President (did not occur)

H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)




Massachusetts
No MA-1 Olver, John [D]
Aye MA-2 Neal, Richard [D]
No MA-3 McGovern, James [D]
No MA-4 Frank, Barney [D]
Aye MA-5 Meehan, Martin [D]
Aye MA-6 Tierney, John [D]
No MA-7 Markey, Edward [D]
No MA-8 Capuano, Michael [D]
Aye MA-9 Lynch, Stephen [D]
Aye MA-10 Delahunt, William [D]
GovTrack: House Vote On Passage: H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

 

[finebead]

Freddie and fannie were regulated? Do you have a link to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA

A majority of repub and dems passed a Fannie reform bill in 2005, HR 1461, it passed 331 - 90, so Frank's influence was NOT strong.

Oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (H.R. 1461)

The House voted 331-90 to establish a new agency to regulate the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have been accused of poor financial management in recent years. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are privately owned, congressionally chartered financial institutions created to support federal policies to assure ready availability of financing for housing. Some opponents of the legislation argued that even stronger oversight authority, such as that contained in a competing Senate bill, is required. Congressman Platts voted against H.R. 1461 and in favor of stronger oversight provisions.

E-Newsletter from Congressman Todd Russell Platts

The companion bill, S 190 was never voted on in the senate, because the repub senate, lead by Bill Frist, never brought it for a vote although it was passed out of committee. It was never brought for a vote, because it did not have enough republican votes to even get a simple majority although the repubs held a majority in the senate at the time. It failed due to lack of hard republican support.

Exactly what happen?
Introduced Apr 5, 2005
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee May 25, 2005
Amendments (9 proposed) View Amendments
Passed House Oct 26, 2005
Senate Vote (did not occur)
Signed by President (did not occur)

H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)




Massachusetts
No MA-1 Olver, John [D]
Aye MA-2 Neal, Richard [D]
No MA-3 McGovern, James [D]
No MA-4 Frank, Barney [D]
Aye MA-5 Meehan, Martin [D]
Aye MA-6 Tierney, John [D]
No MA-7 Markey, Edward [D]
No MA-8 Capuano, Michael [D]
Aye MA-9 Lynch, Stephen [D]
Aye MA-10 Delahunt, William [D]
GovTrack: House Vote On Passage: H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

What's your point. The bill passed with a majority of both repubs and dems voting FOR reform. Frank was irrelevant, yet the repubs want to try and dodge their accountability as the governing party in the house, the senate, and the white house and try to blame Frank, while he clearly HAD NO POWER. His own party did not vote with him on HR 1461.

So, why didn't the republican controlled senate pass a bill, S 190, and why didn't congress regulate Fannie and Freddie in 2005?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A majority of repub and dems passed a Fannie reform bill in 2005, HR 1461, it passed 331 - 90, so Frank's influence was NOT strong.

E-Newsletter from Congressman Todd Russell Platts

The companion bill, S 190 was never voted on in the senate, because the repub senate, lead by Bill Frist, never brought it for a vote although it was passed out of committee. It was never brought for a vote, because it did not have enough republican votes to even get a simple majority although the repubs held a majority in the senate at the time. It failed due to lack of hard republican support.

Exactly what happen?
Introduced Apr 5, 2005
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee May 25, 2005
Amendments (9 proposed) View Amendments
Passed House Oct 26, 2005
Senate Vote (did not occur)
Signed by President (did not occur)

H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)




Massachusetts
No MA-1 Olver, John [D]
Aye MA-2 Neal, Richard [D]
No MA-3 McGovern, James [D]
No MA-4 Frank, Barney [D]
Aye MA-5 Meehan, Martin [D]
Aye MA-6 Tierney, John [D]
No MA-7 Markey, Edward [D]
No MA-8 Capuano, Michael [D]
Aye MA-9 Lynch, Stephen [D]
Aye MA-10 Delahunt, William [D]
GovTrack: House Vote On Passage: H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

What's your point. The bill passed with a majority of both repubs and dems voting FOR reform. Frank was irrelevant, yet the repubs want to try and dodge their accountability as the governing party in the house, the senate, and the white house and try to blame Frank, while he clearly HAD NO POWER. His own party did not vote with him on HR 1461.

So, why didn't the senate pass a bill, S 190, and why didn't congress regulate Fannie and Freddie in 2005?

Why didn't barney franks suppot it? or for that matter any democrats who recieved money from freddy and fanny?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Also why didn'y it make it to the senate?

 

[finebead]

You don't get that CONGRESS CONTROLS THE BUDGET that funded FM/FM.

And you don't get that the repubs controlled the house, the senate, and the white house from 1001-2006, and the subprime crisis spun out of control in 2004-2006.

If you think that was on Frank, WHAT DID HE DO in 2001-2006, other than talk?

What did the repubs fail to do?

 

[finebead]

Exactly what happen?
Introduced Apr 5, 2005
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee May 25, 2005
Amendments (9 proposed) View Amendments
Passed House Oct 26, 2005
Senate Vote (did not occur)
Signed by President (did not occur)

H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)




Massachusetts
No MA-1 Olver, John [D]
Aye MA-2 Neal, Richard [D]
No MA-3 McGovern, James [D]
No MA-4 Frank, Barney [D]
Aye MA-5 Meehan, Martin [D]
Aye MA-6 Tierney, John [D]
No MA-7 Markey, Edward [D]
No MA-8 Capuano, Michael [D]
Aye MA-9 Lynch, Stephen [D]
Aye MA-10 Delahunt, William [D]
GovTrack: House Vote On Passage: H.R. 1461 [109th]: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

What's your point. The bill passed with a majority of both repubs and dems voting FOR reform. Frank was irrelevant, yet the repubs want to try and dodge their accountability as the governing party in the house, the senate, and the white house and try to blame Frank, while he clearly HAD NO POWER. His own party did not vote with him on HR 1461.

So, why didn't the senate pass a bill, S 190, and why didn't congress regulate Fannie and Freddie in 2005?

Why didn't barney franks suppot it? or for that matter any democrats who recieved money from freddy and fanny?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Also why didn'y it make it to the senate?

It does not make any difference WHY Frank did not support HR1461, IT PASSED 331-90, with the majority of both repubs and dems voting for it. Frank did not control the dems any more, he was irrelevant at that time.

The companion bill, S 190 was passed out of committee and went to the senate for consideration, but Bill Frist (R-Tenn) never brought the bill to a vote on the senate floor. You tell me why the repubs failed to govern, why the senate never voted on the F&F reform bill that was passed by a huge majority in the house, with strong bi-partisan support.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't get that CONGRESS CONTROLS THE BUDGET that funded FM/FM.

And you don't get that the repubs controlled the house, the senate, and the white house from 1001-2006, and the subprime crisis spun out of control in 2004-2006.

If you think that was on Frank, WHAT DID HE DO in 2001-2006, other than talk?

What did the repubs fail to do?

From your post you showed what the republicans tryed to do

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTP1mJrlLc4&feature=youtube_gdata[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What's your point. The bill passed with a majority of both repubs and dems voting FOR reform. Frank was irrelevant, yet the repubs want to try and dodge their accountability as the governing party in the house, the senate, and the white house and try to blame Frank, while he clearly HAD NO POWER. His own party did not vote with him on HR 1461.

So, why didn't the senate pass a bill, S 190, and why didn't congress regulate Fannie and Freddie in 2005?

Why didn't barney franks suppot it? or for that matter any democrats who recieved money from freddy and fanny?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Also why didn'y it make it to the senate?

It does not make any difference WHY Frank did not support HR1461, IT PASSED 331-90, with the majority of both repubs and dems voting for it. Frank did not control the dems any more, he was irrelevant at that time.

The companion bill, S 190 was passed out of committee and went to the senate for consideration, but Bill Frist (R-Tenn) never brought the bill to a vote on the senate floor. You tell me why the repubs failed to govern, why the senate never voted on the F&F reform bill that was passed by a huge majority in the house, with strong bi-partisan support.

It passed in the house by a Republican majority which makes your point moot. So why didn't it make it to the senate?

 

[finebead]

Why didn't barney franks suppot it? or for that matter any democrats who recieved money from freddy and fanny?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Also why didn'y it make it to the senate?

It does not make any difference WHY Frank did not support HR1461, IT PASSED 331-90, with the majority of both repubs and dems voting for it. Frank did not control the dems any more, he was irrelevant at that time.

The companion bill, S 190 was passed out of committee and went to the senate for consideration, but Bill Frist (R-Tenn) never brought the bill to a vote on the senate floor. You tell me why the repubs failed to govern, why the senate never voted on the F&F reform bill that was passed by a huge majority in the house, with strong bi-partisan support.

It passed in the house by a Republican majority which makes your point moot. So why didn't it make it to the senate?

Now I'm going to show you how the republicans fixed it so Fannie and Freddie could not be regulated, when regulation was needed.

Freddie Mac arranged stealth lobbying in 2005

Associated Press ,Oct. 19, 2008

WASHINGTON — Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.


In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.


Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.


In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

"If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," the senators wrote in a letter that proved prescient.


Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. The states and the senators targeted changed over time, but always stayed on the Republican side.


In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died at the end of the 109th Congress.


The Republican senators targeted by DCI began hearing from prominent constituents and financial contributors, all urging the defeat of Hagel's bill because it might harm the housing boom. The effort generated newspaper articles and radio and TV appearances by participants who spoke out against the measure.


Inside Freddie Mac headquarters in 2005, the few dozen people who knew what DCI was doing referred to the initiative as "the stealth lobbying campaign," according to three people familiar with the drive.
They spoke only on condition of anonymity, saying they fear retaliation if their names were disclosed.


Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin oversaw DCI's drive, according to the three people.


"Hollis's goal was not to have any Freddie Mac fingerprints on this project and DCI became the hidden hand behind the effort," one of the three people told the AP.


Before 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were Democratic strongholds. After 2004, Republicans ran their political operations. McLoughlin, who joined Freddie Mac in 2004 as chief of staff, has given $32,250 to Republican candidates over the years, including $2,800 to McCain, and has given none to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.
On Friday night, Hagel's chief of staff, Mike Buttry, said Hagel's legislation "was the last best chance to bring greater oversight and tighter regulation to Freddie and Fannie, and they used every means they could to defeat Sen. Hagel's legislation every step of the way."


"It is outrageous that a congressionally chartered government-sponsored enterprise would lobby against a member of Congress's bill that would strengthen the regulation and oversight of that institution," Buttry said in a statement. "America has paid an extremely high price for the reckless, and possibly criminal, actions of the leadership at Freddie and Fannie."
Nine of the 17 targeted Republican senators did not sign Hagel's letter: Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Christopher "Kit" Bond and Jim Talent of Missouri, Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and George Allen of Virginia. Aside from the nine, 20 other Republican senators did not sign Hagel's letter.

Freddie Mac arranged stealth lobbying in 2005 | Business | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Bill Frist (R-Tenn) did not bring the bill up for a vote because there was not adequate repub support to regulate Fannie, and since they were in the majority in the senate, that ended the effort. It turns out you don't have to buy the whole senate, you just have to get enough votes on the margin to deny the majority their majority, and DCI did that. But you will notice this did not come to light until 2008. For the republicans, you can be for regulation and against regulation at the same time.

Heck, by my count, that's 25 repubs in the senate in favor of reform, and 29 against, out of a total of 54 repub senators. The repubs couldn't even get a majority in their own caucus. This was not on Barney Frank, this could never have passed the senate because the republicans would have killed it if it came to a vote. Frist was just too smart to show the public the real story. Then you can talk about reform and blame its failure on someone else, since the hypocrits weren't on the record.