Tag Archives: Fannie Mae

Senate Votes on Financial Regulation Amendments

12 Wednesday May 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, Democrats, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, lobbyists, McCain, Politics, Progressives, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Any time anything passes in the Senate by a vote of 96–0 I’m suspicious. Those numbers are usually reserved for meaningless proclamations declaring ‘National Be Kind to Puppies and Kitties Day.’ But such a vote took place yesterday on Sen. Bernie Sanders’ amendment to audit the Federal Reserve.

Sanders’ original amendment would have required the Fed to submit to regular audits, but the watered-down version passed yesterday is for a one-time audit with a specific scope and time frame. This only adds to my suspicion that the newer version is more than likely toothless:

“A Fed spokeswoman declined to comment on the Senate action, but Fed leaders, who previously have objected to broader efforts to review monetary policy, have not opposed the most recent version of Sanders’s proposal.”

A more accurate gauge of where the Senate stands on REAL financial reform can be found in other amendments taken up yesterday, like the one proposed by David Vitter which called for the stronger provisions contained in Sanders’ original proposal. It was voted down 62 to 37 with only 6 Democrats voting “Yea”—Cantwell, Dorgan, Feingold, Lincoln, Webb, and Wyden.

Another amendment, proposed by Sen. McCain, called for a time frame for winding down and eventually ending the government’s conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That failed by a vote of 56 to 43 with only 2 Democrats–Bayh and Feingold–voting “Yea.” An alternative to the McCain amendment, proposed by Chris Dodd, called for “the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study on ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” That passed by a margin of 63–36. Russ Feingold (I detect a pattern here) was the lone Democrat voting “Nay.”

Credit where credit is due, Sen. Shelby is right on the money (so to speak):

“Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were at the heart of the financial crisis,” Shelby said Tuesday. “How we can have basic regulatory reform, financial reform, if we’re not going to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?”

Also set for a vote this week is Sen. Lincoln’s amendment which would place strong restrictions on derivative trading. Needless to say, Wall Street is going all out to kill this:

“…the five [largest] banks together have mustered more than 130 registered lobbyists, including 40 former Senate staff members and one retired senator, Trent Lott. The list includes former staff members for the Senate majority and minority leaders, the chairmen and ranking members of the banking and finance committees, and more than 15 other senators. In the first quarter, the banks spent $6.1 million on lobbying.”

Why are the banksters fighting so hard to stop it? Follow the money:

“The change could cost the industry a lot of money. Banks reported $22.6 billion in derivatives revenue in 2009..”

Facing Tough Choices on Deficit and Debt

04 Thursday Feb 2010

Posted by in economy, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

I think most people who live in the real world (leaving out the gutless wonders who inhabit Washington, D.C.) will agree that if we ever hope to get our fiscal house in order some tough choices will have to be made. David Pauly has a piece at Bloomberg today with 9 suggestions:

1. Restore all income taxes to the pre-President George W. Bush level, not just those for people earning $250,000 or more.

2. Tax the banks $90 billion as proposed by President Barack Obama to pay for their bailout. Then break them up — making them small enough to fail and eliminating the need for more trillion-dollar rescues.

3. Eliminate income-tax deductions for property taxes and mortgage interest. Phase it in over five years so it hurts less.

4. Break Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into four mortgage- buying companies and get them off the federal dole.

5. Raise the retirement age for collecting full Social Security benefits to 72. Cut cost-of-living increases for beneficiaries to half the inflation rate for 10 years.

6. Raise the age for Medicare eligibility to 68.

Regarding numbers 5 and 6: Keep in mind that when Social Security was passed in 1936, life expectancy was 62. When Medicare was passed in 1965 it was 70. Today it’s 78.

7. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the current schedules.

8. Kill farm subsidies.

9. Reduce government.
Pauly lists some of the overlapping agencies and departments which could eliminated:

The government has both the U.S. Postal Service and the Postal Regulatory Commission. Doesn’t competition from e-mail and FedEx Corp. keep postal rates in line?

[Does] the president really needs both a Council of Economic Advisers and a National Economic Council?

Government housing officials will have less to do if we cut Fannie and Freddie loose.

Whole agencies might be suspect. We, for instance, have a Selective Service System but no draft.

Certainly food for thought.

Cooking the Books: Fannie and Freddie Not In the Budget

04 Thursday Feb 2010

Posted by in economy, Financial Crisis, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

As if the staggering numbers that are in President Obama’s budget weren’t enough, take a look at what’s not there:

“Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) — Look through President Barack Obama’s proposed 2011 budget and you’ll see a line calling for a $235 million increase in the Justice Department’s funding to fight financial fraud. Lucky for them, the people who wrote the budget can’t be prosecuted for cooking the government’s books.

…They are keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac off the government’s balance sheet and out of the federal budget, along with their $1.6 trillion of corporate debt and $4.7 trillion of mortgage obligations...Fannie and Freddie aren’t merely wards of the state. Practically speaking, they are the entire U.S. housing market. Their liabilities are the government’s liabilities.

White House budget director Peter Orszag on September 9, 2008, two days after Fannie and Freddie were seized, when he was director of the Congressional Budget Office:

“The degree of control exercised by the federal government over these entities is so strong that the best treatment is to incorporate them into the federal budget.”

That control is stronger today. Congress and the Treasury have given the companies a blank check to blow through whatever taxpayer money is necessary to keep the U.S. housing market afloat. Anyone buying large quantities of U.S. government bonds knows these liabilities exist. So why pretend they don’t?”

A good question for those who promised openness and transparency.

Fannie and Freddie Get a Blank Check for Christmas

29 Tuesday Dec 2009

Posted by in economy, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

I hope everyone had a great Christmas and that Santa brought you everything you wanted. He certainly was very good to Fannie and Freddie. Only in their case, Santa is the American taxpayer, you and me. One thing is clear, the plutocracy never sleeps, or takes a holiday. How about this for a Christmas Eve news dump?

“The Obama administration pledged on Thursday to back beleaguered mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac no matter how big their losses may be in the next three years.”

This brought to you courtesy of the accounting firm of Change, Openness, and Transparency:

“Under a law put in place before the government seized the two mortgage agencies in September 2008, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had until the end of this year to increase the limit without asking Congress for approval…The administration waited until financial markets had closed on Christmas Eve to make the announcement…”

The previous cap on money poured down the Fannie and Freddie black hole was a combined $400 billion, $200 billion each, of which only(?) $111 billion has been used so far. So why change it to “unlimited?” Here’s an explanation:

“If the Treasury is removing the cap, they obviously expect the losses to skyrocket (even though they deny this publicly). This could be happening because the Treasury already knows how much Fannie and Freddie are going to declare as losses this quarter.”

Santa (again, that’s you and me) was also very good to Fannie and Freddie executives:

“But even as the administration was making this open-ended financial commitment, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disclosed that they had received approval from their federal regulator to pay $42 million in Wall Street-style compensation packages to 12 top executives for 2009…The compensation packages, including up to $6 million each to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s chief executives, come amid an ongoing public debate about lavish payments to executives at banks and other financial firms that have received taxpayer aid. But while many firms on Wall Street have repaid the assistance, there is no prospect that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will do so.”

That’s $6 million each for CEOs whose companies have lost a combined $200 billion. Nice work if you can get it, and you can get it if you happen to have the Treasury Secretary on speed dial.

The Agonist sums up the entire cluster____ about as well as I’ve seen it:

“We are getting very used to watching the federal government operate with only the sketchiest information on what it is doing. Most everything seems to be done behind doors and in secrecy. That’s what makes this brief announcement about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so troublesome. When the federal government starts talking about unlimited guaranties to cover future losses, our biggest worry ought to be that whatever large number we can contemplate is included under the word “unlimited”, the government has an even larger number in mind.”

Government of the wealthy and powerful, by the wealthy and powerful, and for the wealthy and powerful. Some things never “change.”