Reality Check – We (GOP) Were For It, Before We Were…
Oct 19th, 2008 by RSmitty
…bought out by either eight nine moronic boobs or eight nine world-through-dollar-sign-glasses Senators.
So…the GOP-then-controlled Senate actually wanted to regulate Fredde Mac until (excerpted from well within the linked article)…
Eight of the targeted senators did sign it: Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Larry Craig of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, George Voinovich of Ohio and David Vitter of Louisiana. Santorum, Crapo and Bunning were on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and had voted in favor of sending the bill to the full Senate.
At least there’s some possibility those other 20 weren’t persuaded into a greed-fueled stance. Not that their decision was right, but they apparently weren’t bought or persuaded. These other nine completely sold out.
It’s no wonder at all why we’ve lost the admiration we once held so very long ago.
You may have that backwards. The way I read it the 9 Senators mentioned in the previous paragraph were the sell-outs. These 8 were the ones that stood strong for reigning in Freddi and Fanny.
Aw…crap! You know, I read that twice. I saw what you did at first, but Olympia Snowe’s name threw me. Her complicity made me think I read it wrong. So, I read it again and some of the names that signed Hagel’s letter (Santorum, for one) made me think that I indeed did read it wrong.
Grr…thanks for the correction notice. I will fix it.
You should have known that Rick Santorum would have been on the side of the little guy and Snowe would be on the side of the Democrats. That has been true of their entire careers. I like Susan Collins from Maine. I may not always agree with her, but she gets to whatever position she holds thoughtfully. She is a team player when it makes sense and goes her own way when she must, but not in a way that makes enemies. Senator Snowe could learn a lot from her colleague.
No problem. Your article itself is still very valid.
What strikes me as interesting is the lengths that Freddie Mac went to stave off oversight. They hired a firm to have prominent citizens in those states contact the Senators. They did not lobby the Republicans directly so the Repulicans didn’t even know this was orchestrated. The Democrats were all lock step. I wonder why they aren’t the ones being classified as “moronic boobs or eight nine world-through-dollar-sign-glasses Senators”.
The Democrats were all lock step.
An interesting charge coming from the minority party that has controlled the Senate by voting 100% party-line against divided Dems.
No one here has yet discussed the Hagel bill on its merits. What was the poison pill that had the Dems all against it? Hmmmm????
noman, I’ll give you the floor there. I honestly will plead ignorance. I caught this news article last night and read about the persuasion millions of dollars for lobbyists can do to so-called fiscally-responsible representation in Washington.
DavidA – I think it’s far better to criticize one who is close when it is deserved than to pretend nothing is wrong under the guise of “love.” This is just another example in what’s slowly becoming a lonnnnng list of boneheadedness.
The article you posted pointed out that the only support for reform came from Republicans. The vote out of committee was with every Republican for and every Democrat against. The article pointed out that the Democrats were willing to block it and Frisk didn’t see the need to bring it up because you couldn’t find any Democrats to crack 60. The only reason he was open to bringing it up would be if the Republicans clamored for a vote even if it would be blocked.
The issue was not whether or not these Republicans supported the bill, but whether they cared enough about it to force a vote. I bet they wish they had now. They could have had all of the Democrats on record and it would be a different election for Senate right now.
How can you act like it is a Republican problem. 80% of the party was with us and hardly any of the Democrats were. It is fine to criticize those who didn’t go along, but none of them fought the reform except for maybe 2 guys. The Democrats actively opposed it.
I am for accuracy. You know I have defended some of your rightful critiques of our party. I hope you will continue to offer a your perspective. I just hope you don’t get jaded. As the article said, this is an issue where the Republicans were on top of regulating a potential problem. The Democrats weren’t. Give them credit. They deserve it.
The GOP would deserve credit if they had reined in freddie and fannie. They did not. True, nor did the Dems!
The lesson is that once again special interests prevailed over good sense as money exchanged hands.
Somehow this must be stopped. We must create legislation that will severely limit campaign financing by special interest groups, short of limiting free speech. Attempts to date, like McCain-Feingold, have proved of limited success at best.
And now the Barack Obama’s fund raising success has caused experts to rethink public financing. Every expert seems to have their own idea, with no unanimity or even consensus.
Fred Wertheimer has the best idea I’ve seen: “The combination of small Internet donations, a multiple match in public funds and realistic overall spending limits to reflect the costs of running a modern presidential campaign would provide presidential candidates with the opportunity to run competitive elections and would leave far less need or room for bundlers and large donors in presidential primary elections.”
http://www.publicampaign.org/
I would add to that setting a limit on the length of the campaign, perhaps to five months, three to the primary, two to the general.
What to do about the 527′s remains a puzzle, since to constrain them can/has been viewed as a restraint on free speech.
Here’s the poison pill:
(thehill.com/the-executive/fannie-freddie-regulation-a-step-closer-2005-10-27.html)
Mind you, those regulation-loving Republicans had no problem allowing Fannie and Freddie to buy ever-bigger jumbo loans at the upper end of the market. They wanted to turn Fannie/Freddie into a support system for the upper middle class to purchase McMansions.
Dems, meanwhile, wanted to use the profits from the higher-end loans to support lower-income homebuyers.
and…didja ever consider that maybe Dems voted against the Senate bill because it was against the interests of their constituency?
Even Bush got into the act, opposing the compromise that would have made the bill palatable to Dems:
Mind you, those regulation-loving Republicans had no problem allowing Fannie and Freddie to buy ever-bigger jumbo loans at the upper end of the market. They wanted to turn Fannie/Freddie into a support system for the upper middle class to purchase McMansions.
That cleared some cobwebs off of my brain. I think I remember Dave (Burris) being pretty ticked about the larger loans, too.
Tell you what, and this goes to David A, too, there certainly is fault all over the place here. I’d like to think it would go without saying, but you can’t be sure anymore, that of course there are exceptions, those who knew the right path to take and both parties probably had at least one member in that mindset.
The interwoveness of so many politicians and corporations and special interests and so-on. It’s mind-boggling and mind-numbing. My God, we are a gurgling cess pool of greed. Forget the finger pointing (who will really accept blame, anyway), we need to fix it and do it right.
DavidA,
Going back to my pointing out the the nine-R’s, I do it because I, too, am an R. It’s too easy for a Republican to criticize a Democrat and a Democrat to criticize a Republican. It’s not so easy to do to your own. Of course, if you want to continue to grow and improve and cure the ills, you can’t just ignore the wrong and look to the other party for blame. That’s my point.
I do agree with that last point. You are 100% correct. I just also find it true that you can’t ignore the other party as well especially when they were 90% of the problem and renegade GOP members didn’t even affect the outcome. God love them all, but one of these days we are going to have to send people with vision to Washington.
Bernie Ebbers went to prison for his cooking of the books but would anyone dare investigate the swindlers at Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac?
Not that it would do any good under an Obama Admiinistration, where pardons would become the new ‘party favor’.
Perhaps this is giving Obama pal Tony Rezko a reason to keep his mouth shut.
would anyone dare investigate the swindlers at Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac?
You mean like this?
Actually, when the history of this crisis is written, I don’t think it will even be found to have anything to do with sub-primes or mortgages at all. I think the root is the Bush policies which gave us high structural deficit, the drop in real income, more inequality in wealth, and the money printed to cover it all up.
Congress has already investigated the Fannie and Freddie fiasco, having, for example, Raines in for questioning. He was raked over the coals, so to speak. What is missing is prosecution of the swindlers.
Isn’t it the Bush Justice Department that should be doing this, Art?
Let us wait and see what the Obama Justice Department does, instead of imagining failure by partisan interests like yourself.