First of all, let me state that I am not making any effort to make excuses for Democrats who acted unwisely or unethically. I have nothing good to say about Raines. I do not like the way Dodd presents himself. I am not enamored with Democrats simply because I am one.
I do blame the Democrats involved in 'blocking' the efforts of the then chairman of the committee Richard Shelby to restrain and regulate Fredddie/Fannie. However, the Republicans could have pushed it through the committee anyway. They were in the majority and held the chairmanship. They didn't have the courage to battle a looming Democratic filibuster. They should have had. After all, passing bills and regulating is rarely a one chop assault on a policy/law/institution. Bills have to be presented, rejected, debated even in the face of certain loss. Someday, if the bill/legislation is good and wise, it will pass. Good on the Republicans for taking the initiative, bad on them for not going as far as possible and then starting again. A question here is in order, why did they wait for so long to get started on this?
In the last year of their six years control of Washington, they waited until the last year? A year when traditionally majority parties lose their majorities especially when their incumbent president is immensely unpopular? There must be more to the story. I don't know, maybe they did make earlier efforts and maybe they failed in some way as well, but they were in the majority. Did the House Republicans make any similar efforts? My point is that Republicans were in control. Democrats can hinder, block, and filibuster, but the art of negotiation is at the heart of our process. Partisanship is so predominant today that negotiations are very difficult.
I therefore blame both parties. As I recall, my impression is that, and it is only an impression, Republicans took an 'our way or the highway' approach to their initiatives during their 6 years (excluding most war issues that the Dems didn't dare contest.) Democrats could only balk at the whole if compromises were not welcome. Democrats often do the same when in control. Believe me, that type of partisanship is so thick in our Utah State government that there are Democrats who believe there is no longer any point of even having a Democratic party in Utah. It is a waste of time and money. I digress. The Republicans could and ought to have done more! The Democrats ought to have not marched in lock-step with a persecuted attitude!
Now the notion that something is stinky with Freddie/Fannie making contributions to Obama.
Freddie/Fannie are government sponsored enterprises-GSE's- that have PAC's and are allowed
to donate money to politicians. Their employees can do likewise. I was surprised that this was allowed and think that it is wrong. But it is absolutely legal.
It is also true that Obama is second on the list in amount of money received. I think it is about $125,000 over the entire course of his presence in Washington. Only Dodd has received more.
Outraged? Don't be outraged at Democrats only! Bob Bennett of UTAH is fourth on a list of the top twenty-five! Although not in the top twenty-five recipients, McCain has received $21,500 and UTAH's Orin Hatch has received $18,250. Principle is principle and they have all seemed happy to take it. In fact in the 2006 election cycle when the Republicans were in control, they accepted 53% of the money contributed by Freddie/Fannie. When the Dems were in control they accepted about the same percentage of the money contributed. Freddie/Fannie do what all businesses do. The question is, ought this be allowed from a GSE? I say no. Those reasons can be argued in another blog if anyone disagrees.
In summary, the blame for the fiasco cannot be demonstrably laid at the feet of either party singularly. However, and unfortunately, the blame can be spun to the feet of one or other of the parties. Too bad that Freddie/Fannie can try to buy influence, but don't assume that Obama is to blame more that McCain, Bennett, or Hatch.
10 comments:
Point 1:
Legal or not, Obama received his money in the space of only three years, while the others received their money over decades.
Point 2:
It appears 12 attempts were made to reform FrM and FaM, but were blocked each time by the Democrats. I say 'appears' because this number is stated in several blogs and I can't find the list of actual attempts. So it might be a number that was just thrown out there, but I suspect that more than one attempt was made.
Point 3:
I agree that Republicans should bring these bills to the floor and get everybody on record. It's a good thing for the Dems that the Rs didn't in this case, else every Dem who opposed it would have their name plastered all over the Internet (but not the MSM, of course - they've got bucket loads of water to carry).
Point 4:
It is the policy of Dems in congress, especially Senate Dems, to block anything Republicans propose. (The reverse is not necessarily the case, and I can think of a gazillion examples, but I digress as well an exaggerate.)
Liberals are liberals first, and political victories are more important that anything else. This time though, the "anything else" had serious consequences.
I congratulate Doug on seeing both sides to this story. For the most part I agree with his placing of blame for this situation. I agree with Alan also on his points. It is hard to say that when many times their opinions differ so much.
On the finance contributions I lean on Alan's point of three years for Obama vs decades for the others.
I do have one small rebuttal (sp) of a comment in Dougs posting. He said, "A year when traditionally majority parties lose their majorities especially when their incumbent president is immensely unpopular?" This comment or something similar is usually thown out there by those on the left side of the aisle but no mention is made that the Democratic controlled congress has less than 1/2 the approval rating of Bush's rating. Yes, Bush may only have a 35-38% approval but last I saw Congress was at 17%!
There were big discussions on Freddie and Fannie in Sept 2003. Let me give you some quotes that led us to this mess.
"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness (of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."
Democrat Barney Frank in September 2003
Barney Frank (Democrat) "There's no problem with Fannie and Freddie, we have to have affordable housing (i.e. we need to give people loans that do not have the income to justify it.)
Then Treasury Secretary Snow "There are huge problems with Fannie and Freddie, and they need OVERSIGHT."
Senate and house Democrats in unison "This is just a Republican ploy to keep poor people from having affordable housing."
Okay Doug, the GOP can fairly be blamed for not fixing this crisis, it’s true. And the Democrats can be blamed for engineering it in the first place.
Dean always seems to chime in at the right time. So true.
Short fictional story.
My brother messed up the living room, but I got in trouble for not cleaning it up because my brother kept tackling and blocking me.
Point 1: True, but he is a presidential candidate which carries extra interest for donners. Compared the the many millions that he and McCain take in for their races, these numbers are minimal. The principle is what I care about. McCain TAKES it, Obama TAKES it. It is the Widow's Mite in reverse.
It didn't matter how much she gave, she gave.
You take the money, you take the money. It's the principle. Essentially you are saying that there are degrees of guilt that can be measured by the amount of money you accept and in the space of time you take it. OK.
Point 2: I am not surprised. Remember the intention of the Democrats was to make sure that affordable money was available for purchase for housing. Home ownership. Are you questioning the notion that the Fed Government be involved with such initiatives?
Point 3: I agree. In the gay community we have often pressed for votes that we were bound to lose precisely for the reasons you stated. We wanted to know where they stood when they all they had to do previously is give us lip service.
Do you distrust every host on MSNBC? Is there one that you think reasonable?
Point 4: I am sure that you can find ample examples on both sides. Karl Rove is the perfect example of conservatives being conservatives first and that victories are more important that anything else.
As for Brian's comment, I am just stating a historical trend that has been true throughout the years regardless of the sitting president. I am referring to 2006 specifically in the larger context of this curious historical trend.
Dean's comments (nice to read you, Dean, the more the merrier!) bare out my comments in my point two above. I personally don't think that there is anything wrong with the goals set out by Barney Frank. That the Dems refused to allow more oversight is a clear mistake. Poor judgment is poor judgment regardless of the party/party politicians who make it. If we all disowned the parties we harken to every time there is poor judgment shown, no one would belong to any party.
My version of Alan's story:
I was feeding my baby sisters in the living room, it was messy, but they had to eat. I had to keep tackling and blocking my brother who was trying to keep us from making a mess.
This is more true to the situation. Dems were trying to do something good, the Republicans were trying to avoid the mess regardless of the purpose of the effort. This goes to the core of my question in point 2 above.
Doug,
Point 1: You make a good point that politicians from both parties were on the take. However, your widow's-mite-in-reverse analogy doesn't work because it is indeed backwards.
The widow GAVE all that she could.
Should politicians then TAKE all that they can?
Point 2: The federal government was already involved in helping people get home ownership. I have no problem with that. That is what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were doing in the first place. In fact, I think that the best way to make more people into conservatives is to have them own a house and pay property taxes. It helps bring them to their senses. However, it was the Democrats who applied pressure to the mortgage industry and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to give loans be given to people who were in no way capable of paying them back. So what Barney Frank means by affordable housing is "free housing," the tab to be picked up the taxpayer.
Point 3: I don't watch MSNBC enough to know all the commentators. I think that Joe Scarborough makes sense most of the time, but Keith Olberman constantly froths at the mouth. I can't seem to follow his logic or his vitriol. Chris Matthews talks over people and I find myself wanting to change the channel when he is on. I hate those shows on any channel that have talking heads talking over each other.
Points 4: The reason why liberals hate Karl Rove is that he is effective. So they demonize him. I can't think of one time when he sacrificed principal for political gain. Sure there are examples of political one-upmanship in both parties, but Democrats as a whole have made "combat the Republicans at every turn" their #1 unwritten priority and consequences are only considered if it hurts their election chances. Take the recent cave by the Democrats on offshore drilling and oil shale in the west (kudos to Rep. Matheson for helping out on that one). After all that huffing and puffing about saving the planet, they violated their own principles and cancelled the ban. I guess keeping power is more important that saving the planet for Pelosi.
Lastly, I don't deny that the Dems were trying to do something good. That's totally fine, but it is this constant unbridled idealism that is the problem. A little pragmatism will go a long way.
I have to agree with Doug on his version of my story. It makes my point exactly.
"I was feeding my baby sisters in the living room, it was messy, but they had to eat. I had to keep tackling and blocking my brother who was trying to keep us from making a mess."
Maybe you meant to say "to keep us from feeding the children." If so, that is an old worn out liberal line the Republicans are cold-hearted and unfeeling. Republicans have no problem with helping out the less fortunate as long as there is a certain amount of pragmatism involved.
On point one. It is not a question of 'should'. My point is that the principle is giving.
It doesn't matter how much. If you agree to take money, you have accepted the game involved. Both candidates took money, the difference in the amount doesn't really matter. A more acute example is the tobacco money fiasco. Even a dollar condemned candidates who ever took it.
Point two. I am happy to know that you do not have any objections to the government being involved access to home ownership.
Point three. Fair enough.
Point four. Karl Rove has certainly been effective.
But you are wrong, I don't hate him. I don't dislike him for being effective. I dislike him because he impugns the character of opponents as one of his chief tactics, and this in order to be effective.
As for our story buidling. I meant what I wrote. But my point was perhaps too obscure. Dems are often more worried about the the 'feeding' than the 'mess', Republicans are often more worried about 'the mess' than the 'feeding'. That is not to say that Dems don't care at all about 'the mess' and that is not to say that Republicans are not at all worried about the feeding.
I have heard about any stories about Karl Rove impugning people's character. I would like to read up on that if you have any links.
Also, "That is not to say that Dems don't care at all about 'the mess' and that is not to say that Republicans are not at all worried about the feeding."
I guess we have an agreement.
I'll do some Rove work.
Post a Comment