piper17

ACORN, Obama, and the Mortgage Mess By Mona Charen Real Clear Politics September 30, 2008 The financial markets were teetering on the edge of an abyss last week. The secretary of the Treasury was literally on his knees begging the speaker of the House not to sabotage the bailout bill. The crash of falling banks made the earth tremble. The Republican presidential candidate suspended his campaign to deal with the crisis. And amid all this, the Democrats in Congress managed to find time to slip language into the bailout legislation that would provide a dandy little slush fund for ACORN. ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a busy hive of left-wing agitation and “direct action” that claims chapters in 50 cities and 100,000 dues-paying members. ACORN is where Sixties leftovers who couldn’t get tenure at universities wound up. That the bill-writing Democrats remembered their pet clients during such an emergency speaks volumes. This attempted gift to ACORN (stripped out of the bill after outraged howls from Republicans) demonstrates how little Democrats understand about what caused the mess we’re in. … In 2006, for example, ACORN registered 1,800 new voters in Washington. The only trouble was, with the exception of six, all of the names submitted were fake. The secretary of state called it the “worst case of election fraud in our state’s history.” As Fox News reported: “The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms.” ACORN explained that this was an “isolated” incident, yet similar stories have been reported in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, and Colorado — all swing states, by the way. ACORN members have been prosecuted for voter fraud in a number of states. (See www.rottenacorn.com.) Their philosophy seems to be that everyone deserves the right to vote, whether legal or illegal, living or dead. … ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community organizing days. Madeline Talbott hired him to train her staff — the very people who would later descend on Chicago’s banks as CRA shakedown artists. The Democratic nominee later funneled money to the group through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Obama was not just sympathetic — he was an ACORN fellow traveler. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

The Chinese people...oh, you mean the people that the Clinton administration was selling missile technology to...or the "monks" who were contributing to Al Gore's campaign chest. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Because there are crooks on both sides of the aisle. Again, look at who got the contributions from Fannie Mae; while the Dems topped the list (Dodd followed by Obama), there were plenty of GOP members filling their campaign coffers (and pockets) as well. I will say that McCain is way, way, way down the list. Also, it was Palin who took on the corrupt GOP politicians in Alaska and drove them from office. I haven't seen anyone on the left do likewise. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Howard, I was on that load...as well as the one when the left engine blew a spark plug out of the head and we had to get out early. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Well, Senator Dodd certainly has the financial wherewithal to support a large staff; he was the largest receiver of financial contributions from Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac....not to mention several sweetheart mortgages from Countrywide Financial. He should be under investigation for the Countrywide mortgages as he certainly received mortgages with closing costs and interest rates not available to the average creditworthy citizen! "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

From the Chicago Sun Times today: A $100,000 state grant for a botanic garden in Englewood that then-state Sen. Barack Obama awarded in 2001 to a group headed by a onetime campaign volunteer is now under investigation by the Illinois attorney general amid new questions, prompted by Chicago Sun-Times reports, about whether the money might have been misspent. The garden was never built. And now state records obtained by the Sun-Times show $65,000 of the grant money went to the wife of Kenny B. Smith, the Obama 2000 congressional campaign volunteer who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association, which was in charge of the project for the blighted South Side neighborhood. Smith wrote another $20,000 in grant-related checks to K.D. Contractors, a construction company that his wife, Karen D. Smith, created five months after work on the garden was supposed to have begun, records show. K.D. is no longer in business. Attorney General Lisa Madigan -- a Democrat who is supporting Obama's presidential bid -- is investigating "whether this charitable organization properly used its charitable assets, including the state funds it received," Cara Smith, Madigan's deputy chief of staff, said Wednesday. In addition to the 2001 grant that Obama directed to the housing association as a "member initiative," the not-for-profit group got a separate $20,000 state grant in 2006. Madigan's office has notified Obama's presidential campaign of the probe, which was launched this week. But Obama's actions in awarding the money are not a focus of the investigation, Smith said. Questions about the grant, though, come as spending on local pet projects has become an issue in Obama's campaign against John McCain. Obama and Kenny Smith announced the "Englewood Botanic Garden Project" at a January 2000 news conference at Englewood High School. Obama was in the midst of a failed bid to oust South Side Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush for a seat in Congress. The garden -- planned near and under L tracks between 59th Place and 62nd Place -- fell outside of Obama's Illinois Senate district but within the congressional district's borders. Obama vowed to "work tirelessly" to raise $1.1 million to help Smith's organization turn the City of Chicago-owned lot into an oasis of trees and paths. But Obama lost the congressional race, no more money was raised, and today the garden site is a mess of weeds, chunks of concrete and garbage. The only noticeable improvement is a gazebo. In a previous interview, Smith said the state grant money was legitimately spent, mostly on underground site preparation. But no one ever took out construction permits required for such work, city records show. And a contractor who Smith said did most of the work told a reporter all he did was cut down trees and grade the site with a Bobcat. Citing the garden's failure to take root, NeighborSpace -- an umbrella group for dozens of community gardens citywide -- moved Sept. 9 to return the site to the city. Its action followed a July 11 Sun-Times report on the grant. Obama spokesman Michael Ortiz said Wednesday the senator's staff in Washington will monitor the Madigan probe and an additional review under way by Gov. Blagojevich's administration to make sure "the taxpayer funds allocated for the construction of the garden are recuperated from CBHA if the agencies determine that the funds were not properly spent." Obama's goal is to ensure the site "be used in a way that benefits the community and that any taxpayer dollars allocated are spent wisely," Ortiz said. The relationship between Smith and Obama dates to at least 1997, when Obama wrote a letter that Smith used to help the housing association win city funding for an affordable-housing development near the garden site. Plans called for more than 50 homes; a dozen ultimately were built. Smith also has donated $550 to Obama campaign funds. The Sun-Times learned about Karen Smith's involvement in the project through an Aug. 12 Freedom of Information Act response from a lawyer for Blagojevich¹s Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. The department, according to the lawyer, had ³discovered² 52 pages of ³additional documents² ommitted from an initial response in May to a Sun-Times¹ Freedom of Information Act request about the grant. Neither Smith nor his wife has been accused of any wrongdoing. Smith and his lawyer did not return repeated calls seeking comment. In an interview in July, Smith said he was never able to raise the money needed for the garden. But the state grant awarded by Obama was spent properly, he said, on the underground work, with most of the work done by a contractor whose name Smith got wrong. The Sun-Times tracked down the contractor, Rodolfo Marin, in Austin, Texas, where he now lives. "What I was hired for was: Clean up the area and cut the trees -- that's all," Marin said. He said he rented a Bobcat -- a sort of small bulldozer -- for the project. And how much did Smith pay him? "If he spent about $3,000 with me, that was too much." "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

What you feel if he said that he was not voting for Obama because of First Amendment "freedom of speech" issues? "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Of course, the NRA is biased. I and four million + other citizens in this country pay them good money to be biased in support of our Second Amendment rights. I contribute to them so they will have the financial clout to counteract the activities of the left-wing, socialist people and organizations like the Brady bunch in this country. These left-wing groups don't seem to understand that keeping and bearing arms is an individual right...despite the volumes of writings of the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights...not to mention earlier English Common Law and the recent Supreme Court decision. An organization that claims to check/verify facts and makes it part of their name should be unbiased...unlike national organizations like the NRA...or the NEA, AFL-CIO, AMA, etc. that have a responsibility to their members to be biased in their favor and work for their interests. Put down the Kool-Aid. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

and the NRA issued this rebuttal: Factcheck And Brady Campaign Share Same Sugar Daddy Impartial? Independent? NO! FactCheck and Brady Campaign in Bed with Annenberg Foundation FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician's claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called "FactCheckers" use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress to refute facts compiled by NRA's research of vote records and review of legislative language. There's another possible explanation behind FactCheck's positions. Just last year, FactCheck's primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, also gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for "efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry." Annenberg made a similar grant for $100,000 in 2005. (source) Regardless of the cause, it's clear that while FactCheck swoons over a politician's rhetoric, NRA prefers to look at the more mundane details - like how that politician voted on a bill and what kind of impact that legislation had or may have had on law-abiding gun owners. FactCheck claims that NRA advertisements "distort" Barack Obama's anti-gun positions, but FactCheck's own sources prove otherwise. In fact, even Obama's campaign has refused to deny his most extreme positions. FactCheck also dismisses NRA's statements as "contrary to what [Obama] has said throughout his campaign." But as FactCheck says, "believing something doesn't make it so." And unless FactCheck is an arm of the Obama campaign, isn't it their job to find out if Obama is telling the truth? FactCheck claim: "Obama is proposing no ...ban" on use of firearms for self-defense in the home. FactCheck is wrong. Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home. As FactCheck notes, the bill was provoked by a case where a Wilmette, Ill. homeowner shot an intruder in self-defense in his home; the homeowner's handgun was banned by a town ordinance. (After the U.S. Supreme Court found Washington, D.C.'s similar ban unconstitutional, Wilmette repealed the ordinance to avoid litigation.) The legislation was very plainly worded, but as limited as its protection was, Obama voted against it in committee and on the floor: It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another ...when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business. If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned. Even aside from SB 2165, Obama's support for a total handgun ban (see below) would be a crippling blow to defense in the home, since (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed) handguns are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2818 (2008)). FactCheck claim: Obama "did not ...vote to 'ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition." FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers." Federal law currently bans bullets as "armor piercing" based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ' 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the "minimum" level of body armor, regardless of the bullets' construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting). Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they "may be used in a handgun." The "minimum" level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet. Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would "support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons." (source) The rifles banned as "assault weapons" under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester - the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles. It's true that in 2005, Sen. Kennedy denied his amendment would ban hunting ammunition. But in a floor debate on an identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced the .30-30 Winchester rifle cartridge, used by millions of deer hunters since 1895. "It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America," said Sen. Kennedy. (Congressional Record, 2/26/04, p. S1634.) Isn't it FactCheck's job to be skeptical of politicians' claims, especially when the plain language says otherwise? FactCheck claim: "Obama says he does not support any ... handgun ban and never has." FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban. FactCheck itself cites Obama's 2003 questionnaire to the same group. When asked again if he supported a handgun ban, he could simply have said, "No." Instead, as FactCheck notes, he "avoid[ed] a yes-or-no answer" by saying a ban on handguns "is not politically practicable," then stated his support for other restrictions. The 1996 and 2003 positions are not at all contradictory. Many anti-gun groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, support total bans on handguns but also support lesser regulations that are more "politically practicable." FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is "misleading." FactCheck is wrong. Obama's fancy election-year footwork - claiming he doesn't support licensing or registration because he doesn't think he "can get that done" - isn't enough to get around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing. What's really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn't really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun. FactCheck claim: Saying Obama would appoint judges who agree with him is "unsupported." This FactCheck claim is just strange. Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different? And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.) -NRA- Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Annenburg unbiased? I don't think so. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

It is if it is being used to promote leftist thinking! So, if you consider those who are involved with the Chicago Annenburg Challenge grant - Ayers, Obama, et al - I would venture a guess that leftist ideology is exactly what is being promoted! "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

The foundations of a number of wealthy, philanthropic people have been hijacked by lefties over the years. The Chicago Annenburg Challenge had a close association with Bill Ayers...a domestic terrorist. That constitutes left-wing to me...but, perhaps not to you. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Oh please....you cite a leftist organization as a source for claiming that the NRA is telling lies? Isn't the Annenburg outfit the same one that Obama and Bill Ayres were (are) involved with and that was trying to prevent its documents from being released showing the relationship between Obama, Ayres and other lefties...you know - The Chicago Annenburg Challenge! Read below from Patterico's Pontifications on this very subject or go to the web site - http://patterico.com/2008/09/23/unmitigated-garbage-from-factcheckorg-on-obamas-second-amendment-record/ The summary version: FactCheck ridicules the NRA in this piece. But the NRA is careful to say: look at Obama’s record and not his rhetoric. And at least two of the NRA claims are backed up by references to Obama’s record. Yet FactCheck.org goes on to minimize or completely ignore Obama’s record on these points, choosing instead to concentrate on citations to Obama’s later campaign rhetoric. 1) FactCheck.org declares “false” the NRA’s claim that Obama plans to ban the possession, manufacture, and sale of handguns. But it emerges that this claim is directly based on Obama’s “yes” answer to a the following question in a questionnaire: “Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” FactCheck.org simply faults the NRA for not noting Obama’s later attempts to explain away this answer. But FactCheck.org doesn’t address the fact that Obama falsely denied even seeing the questionnaire, only to have it later emerge that an amended version had his handwriting on it. 2) FactCheck.org calls “supported” the NRA’s claim that Obama would appoint judges who share his views on the Second Amendment. As part of their evidence, FactCheck.org tells us that Obama didn’t contest the Heller decision, which upheld an individual right to bear arms. But FactCheck.org doesn’t mention that Obama’s campaign had initially said of the D.C.’s total ban on handguns in the home: “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.” (Obama later tried to back away from that statement, but it is part of his record, just like his answers to the questionnaire that he had claimed he had never seen, but that turned out to bear his handwriting.) The piece is garbage. Details in the extended entry. First, some context. The piece criticizes the NRA, which encourages FactCheck.org to look at Obama’s record and not his rhetoric. FactCheck.org says it contacted the NRA’s director of public affairs: He declined to speak to us except to say that the claims are based on Obama’s voting record and statements he has made in the media. “We’re comfortable with what we put on there,” Arulanandam said. “We believe our facts.” Sounds like he agreed to make a statement; FactCheck.org just didn’t like it. And no wonder: they go on to do an entire piece on the issue that elevates Obama’s rhetoric over his record. Here are just two examples. First, FactCheck.org ridicules the NRA’s claim that Obama plans to ban the possession, manufacture, and sale of handguns. Here is FactCheck.org’s “analysis”: The NRA bases its claim on a disputed 1996 questionnaire that Obama’s Illinois state Senate campaign filled out for the nonprofit voting group, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. On it, somebody filled in the word “yes” in response to the question, “Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” Hmm. That seems pretty solid. But the Obama campaign said that the survey was actually filled out by his then-campaign manager who “unintentionally mischaracterized his position,” adding that Obama never saw the survey. Oh. Well, we should probably take his word for it, then. As we wrote previously, an amended version of the questionnaire was later submitted to the group, with Obama’s handwritten notes on it providing more detail on some of the answers. Obama clearly saw and handled this version personally and did not alter the question about banning the sale and manufacturing of guns. Hmm. That seems pretty solid. FactCheck.org does not mention the fact that Obama was directly questioned in a debate about his answer on the gun rights questionnaire, and denied that his handwriting was on that particular document. In fact, it was. You can learn this if you click through to one of the FactCheck.org links. But if we’re talking about taking his rhetoric at face value, doesn’t it matter that he publicly claiming something directly relevant to the issue that turned out to be false? Shouldn’t this be in the body of the FactCheck.org analysis? Apparently they don’t consider it to be important. Nevertheless, his aides maintain that the gun-ban answer was a mistake and didn’t reflect Obama’s true position. Oh. Well, we should probably take their word for it, then. Imagine, those crazy NRA people, basing their claims on a questionnaire that Obama personally saw, that he knew represented his position! Why didn’t they take at face value the claims made later by his campaign, after his earlier answers came back to haunt him? I mean: how dare they? Second, we have FactCheck mocking as “unsupported” the NRA’s claim that Obama would “Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment.” FactCheck.org says: The NRA’s fact sheet points out that Obama has voted against the two newest members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Obama voted against the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 and Justice Samuel Alito in 2006. They happen to be two of the five justices that voted in favor of the Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s longstanding handgun ban this year. The New York Times has reported that Obama “favored Democratic filibusters to block many Republican nominees deemed too conservative.” But the NRA can point to no statement by Obama calling for a Second-Amendment test for his judicial appointees, and we could find none. So never mind the justices he has opposed, because he hasn’t explicitly called for a litmus test. But what has he said? What Obama has actually said about selecting judges is that “[w]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” Very sweet. But what has he said about the Second Amendment? In any case, Obama says he believes the Second Amendment “creates an individual right” to bear arms. That’s at odds with some strong gun-control advocates who had argued that the Second Amendment limited the right to bear arms to a “well-regulated militia.” The Supreme Court rejected that view in its June ruling overturning the D.C. gun ban. But Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Chief Justice John Roberts joined that opinion. To the dismay of gun-control advocates, Obama did not criticize the ruling. Instead, he said it “will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.” Really? Is that all he has said about the Heller case? Once again, if you give primacy to what his recent campaign statements have been, then, by golly, he supports the Second Amendment! But if you look at his record — his past statements — then the NRA is right to be concerned. Here’s what FackCheck.org doesn’t tell you. The Supreme Court case in Heller says that the D.C. ban “totally bans handgun possession in the home.” That’s about as clear a Second Amendment encroachment as you can imagine. And what did Obama’s campaign initially say about that total ban on handguns in the home? The campaign once issued a statement to the Chicago Tribune that said: Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional. This statement proved to be a political loser, of course — and Obama later ended up trying to distance himself from it. That D.C. handgun law is not the D.C. handgun law he thought he knew. But it’s part of his record. And if the NRA was truly elevating his record over his rhetoric, they had a completely fair point. FactCheck.org, at this point, is worse than useless. It is positively misleading voters out there. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Pelosi: Dems bear no responsibility for economic crisis. The following article is from the New York Times By STEVEN A. HOLMES Published: September 30, 1999 In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer (and current Obama advisor) . ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'' Pass the salt, please. Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines and the rest need to eat their words! By STEVEN A. HOLMES Published: September 30, 1999 In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. g ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer (and current Obama advisor) . ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'' Pass the salt, please. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Looks like Joe Biden, in his interview with Katie Couric, was copying off the wrong classmate’s exam again. He said (video here): “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed. He said, ‘look, here’s what happened.’” My recollection is that the stock market crash was in 1929. Two problems here: Television did not even exist in 1929, and FDR was elected in 1932, so he wasn’t even the leader at the time of the crash. When Joe was in history class, was he cheating by looking over the class dunce’s shoulder, or does he just make this stuff up? Of course, TV celebrity Katie Couric also didn’t note that Biden’s statement was doubly incorrect. Her goal was a softball puff piece.” Now, if a Republican had said this.....it would be another Dan Quayle and "potatoe" "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Don't know where you get your information but McCain has been railing about the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac coming day of reckoning since at least 2003. Barney Frank has been trying to rebut...bad choice of words where Barney is concerned, I guess...McCain's warning. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

If you say so. But, you neglected to mention the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac honchos who made millions during the run up to this fiasco and are now advising Obama on economic matters. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Covering His Fannie Thursday, September 18, 2008 OBAMA A TOP RECIPIENT IN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC AND LEHMAN BROTHERS Obama Ranks Second Among Donations From Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Among All Members Of Congress Since 1989: In Just Four Years, Obama Has Received More Money From Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Than Any Other Member Of Congress In The Past Two Decades (Since 1989) Except Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Chris Dodd. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08) Dodd Has Served In Federal Office Since 1975. (The Washington Post Website, www.washingtonpost.com, Accessed 9/15/08) •Obama Has Served In Federal Office Since 2005. (The Washington Post Website, www.washingtonpost.com, Accessed 9/15/08) Obama Ranks Second Among Donations From Lehman Brothers Among All Members Of Congress Since 1989: In Just Four Years, Obama Has Received More Money From Lehman Brothers Than Any Other Member Of Congress In The Past Two Decades (Since 1989) Except Sen. Hillary Clinton. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Brothers Grim: Is Lehman Next?” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/12/08) Top Executives At Lehman Brothers Are Obama Bundlers: Ted Janulis, Head Of Mortgage Capital At Lehman Brothers Until His Retirement In September 2008, Is A Bundler For Obama’s Presidential Campaign Committed To Raising $50,000 To $100,000. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 5/19/08) John Rhea, A Managing Director And Co-Head Of Global Consumer And Retail Investment Banking For Lehman Brothers, Is A Bundler For Obama’s Presidential Campaign Committed To Raising $50,000 To $100,000. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 5/15/08) “[N]adja Fidelia, Who Is Also A Managing Director At Lehman Brothers, Has Raised At Least $50,000 For Mr. Obama…” (Timothy Williams, “Obama Takes His Campaign to Harlem,” New York Times, 11/30/07) OBAMA ADVISOR JIM JOHNSON FORMER FANNIE MAE AND LEHMAN BROTHERS EXECUTIVES EXPANDED LOBBYING ACTIVITIES AND RECEIVED MILLIONS IN COMPENSATION Former CEO Of Fannie Mae And Former Obama Advisor Jim Johnson Resigned Under Criticism: Jim Johnson Is The Former CEO Of Fannie Mae. (David A. Vise, “Fannie Mae Lobbies Hard To Protect Its Tax Break,” The Washington Post, 1/16/95) “Jim Johnson, The Former Chairman Of Fannie Mae Who Was One Of Three Advisors Tapped By Democrat Barack Obama To Vet Vice Presidential Candidates, Resigned Today After Questions Were Raised About Favoritism He May Have Received From Countrywide Financial Corp.” (Johanna Neuman, “Barack Obama Advisor Jim Johnson Quits Under Fire,” Los Angeles Times, 6/12/08) Johnson Remains A Bundler For Obama’s Presidential Campaign And Has Committed To Raising $100,000 To $200,000. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 5/19/08) Johnson Earned Large Bonuses At Fannie Mae Due To An Accounting Manipulation: In 1998, Fannie Mae’s Earnings Were Manipulated, Which Resulted In “Maximum Payouts” To Executives Including CEO Jim Johnson. “As CEO of Fannie Mae, Johnson, a former chief of staff to Vice President Walter F. Mondale and chairman of the board of the Kennedy Center, was the beneficiary of accounting in which Fannie Mae’s earnings were manipulated so that executives could earn larger bonuses. The accounting manipulation for 1998 resulted in the maximum payouts to Fannie Mae’s senior executives — $1.9 million in Johnson’s case — when the company’s performance that year would have otherwise resulted in no bonuses at all, according to reports in 2004 and 2006 by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.” (Jonathan Weisman and David S. Hilzenrath, “Obama ’s Choice Of Insider Draws Fire,” The Washington Post, 6/11/08) •The Manipulation Resulted In Johnson Receiving A Bonus Of Over $1.9 Million When He Otherwise Would Not Have Earned A Bonus. “An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight report in September accused the company of improperly deferring $200 million of estimated expenses in 1998, which allowed management to receive full annual bonuses. Had the expenses been recorded that year, no bonuses would have been paid, the report said. Fannie Mae reported paying bonuses in 1998 to Johnson, who received $1.932 million; Raines, who then was chairman-designate, $1.11 million; Chief Operating Officer Lawrence M. Small, $1.108 million; Vice Chairman Jamie S. Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general, $779,625; Chief Financial Officer J. Timothy Howard, $493,750; and Robert J. Levin, who was executive vice president for housing and community development, $493,750.” (Albert B. Crenshaw, “High Pay At Fannie Mae For The Well-Connected,” The Washington Post, 12/23/04) Johnson Also Received Fees And Compensation From Fannie Mae Worth $3.3 Million Between 2001 And 2006. “Johnson left the company before it was swept up in an accounting scandal that tarred its reputation, but even during the years of scandal, Johnson was reaping hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and other compensation, $3.3 million in all between 2001 and 2006.” (Jonathan Weisman and David S. Hilzenrath, “Obama’s Choice Of Insider Draws Fire,” The Washington Post, 6/11/08) Fannie Mae Incorrectly Reported Losses That Allowed Johnson To Receive A Large Bonus For The Year: In 1998, Fannie Mae Improperly Deferred $200 Million Dollars In Expenses, Which Allowed Johnson To Receive Nearly $2 Million In Bonuses; Johnson Would Not Have Received A Bonus If The Money Had Been Properly Expensed. “An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight report in September accused the company of improperly deferring $200 million of estimated expenses in 1998, which allowed management to receive full annual bonuses. Had the expenses been recorded that year, no bonuses would have been paid, the report said. Fannie Mae reported paying bonuses in 1998 to Johnson, who received $1.932 million; Raines, who then was chairman-designate, $1.11 million; Chief Operating Officer Lawrence M. Small, $1.108 million; Vice Chairman Jamie S. Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general, $779,625; Chief Financial Officer J. Timothy Howard, $493,750; and Robert J. Levin, who was executive vice president for housing an d community development, $493,750.” (Albert B. Crenshaw, “High Pay At Fannie Mae For The Well-Connected,” The Washington Post, 12/23/04) Johnson Engineered An Effort To Lobby Politicians So That Fannie Mae Would Not Have To Pay Local Taxes To Washington, D.C.: While Johnson Was CEO, Fannie Mae Did Not Have To Pay Washington D.C. Taxes Which Cost The City Hundreds Of Millions Per Year. “While Wall Street benefits from Fannie Mae’s prosperity, the District government does not. Fannie Mae, the biggest, most profitable company in Washington, is exempt from local income taxes. That exemption costs the cash-strapped D.C. government hundreds of millions of dollars a year.” (David A. Vise, “The Financial Giant That’s In Our Midst,” The Washington Post, 1/15/95) •”If Fannie Mae Were Required To Pay Taxes, It Would Wipe Out The District’s Budget Deficit.” (David A. Vise, “The Financial Giant That’s In Our Midst,” The Washington Post, 1/15/95) •Johnson Said That Fannie Mae Was “The Most Powerful Financial Firm In America” And He Urged Employees To Oppose Any New Taxes On The Company. “There is no reason they shouldn’t be subject to the tax,” said former House District Committee chairman Pete Stark. “It is not fair. They make huge profits,” the California Democrat said. The tax break is one of numerous congressionally conferred advantages that Fannie Mae officials preserve through a polished political operation directed by Jim Johnson, the company’s chairman and chief executive. In a talk with employees, Johnson described Fannie Mae as ‘the most powerful financial firm in America.’ He wants Fannie Mae employees to oppose forcefully any ne w effort to tax the company.” (David A. Vise, “The Financial Giant That’s In Our Midst,” The Washington Post, 1/15/95) Johnson Devised A Strategy To Lobby D.C. Politicians So That Fannie Mae Would Not Have To Pay Local Taxes. “Last summer, D.C. Councilman Bill Lightfoot discovered a simple solution to the District’s financial crisis: eliminate a $ 300-million-a-year tax break for the city’s most profitable company, Fannie Mae. ‘I believe Fannie Mae ought to pay local taxes,’ Lightfoot said. ‘It practically solves the city’s financial crisis in one year. There is no public policy reason to exempt them. It is not fair.’ Inside Fannie Mae’s sprawling Wisconsin Avenue headquarters, Lightfoot’s proposal set off alarms. A team of executives led by chief executive Jim Johnson and Vice Chairman Frank Raines gathered around the firm’s 34-foot-long boardroom table to dec ide how to respond. They devised a bold strategy: Use the company’s considerable resources and political clout to prevent Lightfoot’s proposal from being voted on or publicly debated by council members, whom they feared would support the tax if it got on the agenda. ‘The task was to keep it from ever seeing the light of day,’ said Frederick D. Cooke Jr., one of the highly regarded lobbyists Fannie Mae hired to quash the proposal. ‘What we didn’t want to do was have a big public debate about this.’” (David A. Vise, “Fannie Mae Lobbies Hard To Protect Its Tax Break,” The Washington Post, 1/16/95) •”In Addition To Enlisting The Lobbying Help Of The Local Charitable Groups It Supported, Fannie Mae Hired A Team Of Top Lobbyists To Persuade D.C. Politicians To Drop The Tax Proposal Without A Vote.” (David A. Vise, “Fannie Mae Lobbies Hard To Protect Its Tax Break,” The Washington Post, 1/16/95) In 1998, Johnson Opened A Lobbying Office For Fannie Mae In Oklahoma: In 1998, Johnson, Then-CEO Of Fannie Mae, Hosted The Opening Ceremony Of A Lobbying Office In Oklahoma. “The concern is whether such efforts were made to bolster Fannie’s business more than to advance philanthropic goals. Critics say the foundation helped to reinforce ties with various congressional groups forged by Fannie’s in-house lobbyists. At times the two seemed indistinguishable: They often sponsored events in tandem. Both were big donors to the CBCF’s annual awards gala in 2003 and a similar black-tie event for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute in 2002. In 1998, then-CEO Jim Johnson hosted the opening ceremony of a lobbying and public relations office in Oklahoma, an event attended by former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating and then-Senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.). But wearing his other hat as the foundation’s chairman, Johnson al so took the opportunity to announce $125,000 worth of grants to local charities.” (Dawn Kopecki, “Philanthropy, Fannie Mae Style,” Business Week, 4/2/07) Johnson Recruited Current Obama Economic Policy Advisor Former Commerce Secretary William Daley As A Lobbyist For Fannie Mae: Former Commerce Secretary William Daley Serves As An Obama Advisor For Economic Policy. “At his stop in New Mexico, Obama sought to keep the focus almost exclusively on the economy, appearing with a panel of experts that included William Daley, brother of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and a former U.S. commerce secretary.” (John McCormick and Jill Zuckman, “Rivals Spend Day As Frequent Fliers,” Chicago Tribune, 2/2/08) Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson Recruited Former Sec. Daley As A Lobbyist For Fannie Mae. “Fannie’s government relations operations dramatically expanded in the mid-1990s, when then-CEO Johnson recruited Washington A-listers Robert Zoellick, who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations; Lawrence M. Small, former secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; and William M. Daley, commerce secretary in the Clinton administration.” (Lisa Lerer, “Fannie, Freddie Spent $200M To Buy Influence,” The Politico, 7/16/08) From 2002 Through 2005, Daley Was A Registered Lobbyist For Fannie Mae. (U.S. Senate Office Of Public Records Website, soprweb.senate.gov, Accessed 7/27/08) Before Heading Fannie Mae, Johnson Was A Registered Foreign Agent For Lehman Brothers: In The 1980s, Johnson Worked For Shearson Lehman Brothers. “In the early 1980s Johnson had already started his own Washington consulting company, Public Strategies, with his Carter administration colleague Richard Holbrooke. And now he followed Holbrooke to Wall Street as an investment banker at Shearson Lehman Brothers.” (Lloyd Grove, “The Big Chair,” The Washington Post, 3/27/98) OBAMA ADVISOR FRANK RAINES: FORMER FANNIE MAE CEO INVOLVED IN ACCOUNTING SCANDAL Obama Has Solicited Advice From Former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines Who Was “Under The Shadow Of A $6.3 Billion Accounting Scandal”: The Obama Campaign Has Solicited Franklin Raines, Who “Stepped Down As Fannie Mae’s Chief Executive Under The Shadow Of A $6.3 Billion Accounting Scandal,” For Advice On Mortgage And Housing Policy. “In the four years since he stepped down as Fannie Mae’s chief executive under the shadow of a $6.3 billion accounting scandal, Franklin D. Raines has been quietly constructing a new life for himself. He has shaved eight points off his golf handicap, taken a corner office in Steve Case’s D.C. conglomeration of finance, entertainment and health-care companies and more recently, taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.” (Anita Huslin, “On The Outside Now, Watching Fannie Falter,” The Washington Post, 7/16/08) Like Jim Johnson, Raines Received Low-Rate Home Loans From Countrywide, A Major Seller To Fannie Mae. “Fannie Mae’s former CEO, Jim Johnson, resigned Wednesday as the leader of likely Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s search for a running mate after The Wall Street Journal reported that he and another former CEO, Franklin Raines, received low-rate home loans from troubled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp. a major seller of home loans to Fannie Mae.” (Alan Zibel, “Fannie Mae CEO Says Ethics Policy Bans Discounts,” The Associated Press, 6/12/08) Former Fannie Mae Chairman Frank Raines Was Accused Of Manipulating The Company’s Earnings. “Former Fannie Mae chairman and chief executive Franklin D. Raines, accused of manipulating the housing finance company’s earnings, is challenging regulators to make their case against him beginning Feb. 16 instead of waiting until the end of the year.” (David S. Hilzenrath, “Fannie Mae’s Former Chief Wants Earlier Hearing Date,” The Washington Post, 2/6/07) Raines Was Forced Out As Fannie Mae’s CEO In December 2004. “Former chief executive Franklin D. Raines and chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard were forced out Tuesday night after accounting mistakes that could cost Fannie $9 billion in reported profit.” (David S. Hilzenrath, “Fannie Mae Exit Packages Face Review,” The Washington Post, 12/23/04) Under Raines’ Leadership, Fannie Mae Committed “Extensive Financial Fraud” And Was Forced To Pay A $400 Million Civil Penalty. “In a May report, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight found that Fannie Mae under Raines perpetrated ‘extensive financial fraud’ so that executives could collect big bonuses. There have been no criminal charges, but the conduct of Raines and other senior Fannie executives ‘was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity,’ the agencies said. Fannie paid a $400 million civil penalty this year to the SEC and OFHEO.” (Jay Hancock, Op-Ed, “Raines Claiming Accountability Isn’t Enough,” The [Baltimore] Sun, 12/10/06) OBAMA DEMOCRATS BLOCKED REFORM OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC Sen. John McCain Urged Action Years Ago To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac: John McCain Urged Action More Than 2 Years Ago, Co-Sponsoring Legislation To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Warning: “If Congress Does Not Act, 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.” McCain: “I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, 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.” (Office Of U.S. Senator John McCain, “McCain Statement On Co-Sponsorship Of The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act Of 2005,” Press Release, 5/26/06) For Years, Obama Supporters In Congressional Oversight Committees Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) And Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) And Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Blocked Efforts To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac: “The Powerhouse Democratic Overseers Of The Banking Committees — Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Christopher Dodd And Sen. Chuck Schumer — Protected Fannie And Freddie.” (Robert Novak, Op-Ed, “Crony Image Dogs Paulson’s Rescue Effort,” Chicago Sun-Times, 7/17/08) Frank Blocked Multiple Attempts At Reform Spanning Back To 1992: “[Frank's] Record Is Close To Perfect As A Stalwart Opponent Of Reforming The Two Companies, Going Back More Than A Decade. The First Concerted Push To Rein In Fan And Fred In Congress Came As Far Back As 1992, And Mr. Frank Was Right There, Standing Athwart. But Things Really Picked Up This Decade, And Barney Was There At Every Turn.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08) “In 2000, Then-Rep. Richard Baker Proposed A Bill To Reform Fannie And Freddie’s Oversight. Mr. Frank Dismissed The Idea, Saying Concerns About The Two Were ‘Overblown’ And That There Was ‘No Federal Liability There Whatsoever.’” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08) “Two Years Later, Mr. Frank Was At It Again. ‘I Do Not Regard Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac As Problems,’ He Said In Response To Another Reform Push. And Then: ‘I Regard Them As Great Assets.’” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08) “Again In June 2003, The Favorite Of The Beltway Press Corps Assured The Public That ‘There Is No Federal Guarantee’ Of Fan And Fred Obligations.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08) “A Month Later, Freddie Mac’s Multibillion-Dollar Accounting Scandal Broke Into The Open. But Mr. Frank Was Sanguine. ‘I Do Not Think We Are Facing Any Kind Of A Crisis,’ He Said At The Time.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08) “Three Months Later He Repeated The Claim That Fannie And Freddie Posed No ‘Threat To The Treasury.’ Even Suggesting That Heresy, He Added, Could Become ‘A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.’” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08) “In April 2004, Fannie Announced A Multibillion-Dollar Financial ‘Misstatement’ Of Its Own. Mr. Frank Was Back For The Defense. Fannie And Freddie Posed No Risk To Taxpayers, He Said, Adding That ‘I Think Wall Street Will Get Over It’ If The Two Collapsed.” (Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/10/08) Dodd Led Efforts To Block Reform Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac: Obama Joined Sen. Dodd, Sen. Kerry, And Sen. Clinton - All Top Recipients Of Fannie And Freddie Contributions In Actively Opposing Reform Measures And Weakening Existing Regulations. “During this period, Sen. Richard Shelby led a small group of legislators favoring reform, including fellow Republican Sens. John Sununu, Chuck Hagel and Elizabeth Dole. Meanwhile, Dodd — who along with Democratic Sens. John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008 — actively opposed such measures and further weakened existing regulation.” (Al Hubbard and Noam Neusner, Op-Ed, “Where Was Sen. Dodd?” The Washington Post, 9/12/08) Sen. Dodd Called The President’s Suggestions For Regulations “Inane” And Recommended The President “Immediately Reconsider His Ill-Advised” Proposals. “As recently as last summer, when housing prices had clearly peaked and the mortgage market had started to seize up, Dodd called on Bush to ‘immediately reconsider his ill-advised’ reform proposals. Frank, now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that the president’s suggestion for a strong, independent regulator of Fannie and Freddie was ‘inane.’” (Al Hubbard and Noam Neusner, Op-Ed, “Where Was Sen. Dodd?” The Washington Post, 9/12/08) Dodd Called On The Regulator For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac To Lift Portfolio Caps. “Both Schumer and Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, have called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator to lift the portfolio caps. They argue that allowing the two firms to buy more mortgages, at least temporarily, would inject much needed liquidity into the market and calm the financial markets.” (Michael R. Crittenden, “Schumer Will Seek To Lift Cap On Mortgage Portfolios Of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,” Congressional Quarterly Today, 8/16/07) NOTE: Dodd Was The Top Recipient Of Contributions From Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac: Since 1989, Dodd Has Received At Least $165,400 From Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac: $48,500 From PACs And $116,900 From Individuals, Receiving More Than Any Other Politician. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org, 9/11/08) Schumer Led Efforts To Block Reform Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac: Schumer Called On The Regulator For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac To Lift Portfolio Caps. “Both Schumer and Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., the chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, have called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator to lift the portfolio caps. They argue that allowing the two firms to buy more mortgages, at least temporarily, would inject much needed liquidity into the market and calm the financial markets.” (Michael R. Crittenden, “Schumer Will Seek To Lift Cap On Mortgage Portfolios Of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,” Congressional Quarterly Today, 8/16/07) Rep. Frank And Sens. Schumer And Dodd Protected Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac. “The powerhouse Democratic overseers of the banking committees — Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Christopher Dodd and Sen. Chuck Schumer — protected Fannie and Freddie.” (Robert Novak, Op-Ed, “Crony Image Dogs Paulson’s Rescue Effort,” Chicago Sun-Times, 7/17/08) After The Subprime Housing Crisis Began, Schumer Advocated Raising The Cap On What Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Could Lend. “Even last September, as the subprime housing crisis began to metastasize and the market was expressing concerns about the pair, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the powerful chair of the Senate banking subcommittee on housing, had the very bad (and ultimately rejected) idea of raising the cap on what Fannie and Freddie could lend by 10 percent. Since then the companies have reported losses of $11 billion, and there’s uncertainty about just how much more damage there will be from future defaults.” (Editorial, “We Can’t Say No, But We Can Regulate Them,” [New York] Newsday, 7/20/08) Despite Reports Of Fraudulent Accounting, Schumer Opposed Creating A Strong Regulator For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac In 2004. “Even after Freddie Mac was shown to have manipulated earnings, Congress remained deadlocked over legislation to create a stronger regulator. Opposing one such bill in 2004, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued that a hostile regulator could use the proposed powers to choke the companies.” (David S. Hilzenrath, “Fannie, Freddie Deflected Risk Warnings,” The Washington Post, 7/14/08) "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Recalling McCain’s statement in support of a Senate reform bill in 2005: “If Congress does not act, 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.” –John McCain, May 26, 2005 Where was Obama? Today, in a speech in Cedar Rapids Iowa, John McCain asks: The dominos that we have seen fall this week began with the corruption and manipulation of our home loan system. The reason this crisis started was the abuses that took place within our home loan agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and within our home loan system. Two years ago I warned this Administration and Congress that regulations for our home loan agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, needed to be fixed… But nothing was done. Senator Obama talks a tough game on the financial markets but the facts tell a different story. He took more money from Fannie and Freddie than any Senator but the Democratic chairman of the committee that regulates them. He put Fannie Mae’s CEO who helped create this disaster in charge of finding his Vice President. Fannie’s former General Counsel is a senior advisor to his campaign. Whose side do you think he is on? When I pushed legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Obama was silent. He didn’t lift a hand to avert this crisis. While the leaders of Fannie and Freddie were lining the pockets of his campaign, they were sowing the seeds of the financial crisis we see today and enriching themselves with millions of dollars in payments. That’s not change, that’s what’s broken in Washington "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Well, there is this from the Harvard Crimson, that bastion of conservative thought: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=219965 "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Ohh, Kallend. The Democrats are not entirely to blame for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problems but look at my previous posting regarding what politicians got the biggest campaign donations from these agencies....Chris Dodd (D. CT) and Barack Obame (D. IL) are at the very top of the list of those politicians getting the most money. These two quasi-government/private agencies bought the support of politicians of both parties but those benefitting the most not to mention obtaining mortgages (note the plural) at rates below market rate and no closing costs were Democrats. Nice attempt to avoid reality, however. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Regarding the financial mess and who is to blame..especially in regard to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the following from the New York Times, September 11, 2003: September 11, 2003 New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae By STEPHEN LABATON 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. The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session. After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall. ''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies. ''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios. At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past. Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission. 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. ''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members. 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. Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.'' The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday. Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators. ''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.'' Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. 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. Sooo...the Bush administration recognized the potential financial problems and proposed actions to address them. Barney Frank and other Dems said there was nothing wrong with these agencies. Who is to blame for the mess? "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

If you want to see which politicians are deriving major financial benefits from the now-seized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac organizations, check out this link: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html One of my senators, Chris Dodd (D. Conn.) of the Senate Banking committee and who claimed he didn't know he was getting special handling from banks in the form of below-market mortgage interest rates, no closing costs etc, is numero uno and Barack Obama is numero dos and also was involved in "special financing" of his Chicago mansion...and he has only been in the Senate for less than one term!!! Than, check out how much money McCain received. Then, tell me who is responsible for this financial mess! "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Gee, that's funny. The Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fiasco started under Clinton and, if you had been reading the Wall Street Journal during that time period, you would have read on the paper's editorial pages warnings of these two quasi-"private" agencies being out of control. The heads of those agencies were Clinton appointees who were filling their own pockets and sticking the tax payers with huge bills that are now coming due. Of course, the current administration did not take the necessary steps to fix the situation...but then again, Barney Frank prevented this from occurring. As long as we are talking financial issues, we could look at Senator Chris Dodd (D. CT) and other Dems who used their positions on the Banking committee etc to get special loan deals at below market interest rates, no closing costs, etc. and are now under "investigation" but the Dems in Congress will undoubtedly protect their own. Gee, and didn't Obama get special "considerations" when he bought his Chicago properties and obtained below market interest rate mortgages? "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

Didn't get to make the jump but I did get to spend four nights in the Yosemite jail with three other skydiving friends for "conspiracy to perform an aerial delivery into a national park". The food was lousy and all the reading material was quite dated. Not sure if any Yosemite jail numbers were issued. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

I think "Duke" is tied up for the next few years and is, therefore, unavailable to run for any election! It was sad to see someone of his background fall so low. "A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling