Report Lays Financial Meltdown Firmly On Barney Frank (D-MA4) and Chris Dodd (D-CT Retired) – Takes Blame Away from Private Sector

A report in the Richmond Times Dispatchplaces the blame for the “financial meltdown” on the government sponsored institution backed by both Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, Fannie Mae. An excerpt follows:

With the publication of "Reckless Endangerment," a new book about the causes of the crisis, this story is beginning to unravel. The authors — Gretchen Morgenson, a business reporter and commentator for the New York Times, and Josh Rosner, a financial analyst — make clear that it was Fannie Mae and the government housing policies it supported, pursued and exploited that brought the financial system to a halt in 2008.
After James A. Johnson, a Democratic political operative and former aide to Walter Mondale, became chairman of Fannie Mae in 1991, they note, it became a political powerhouse, intimidating and suborning Congress and tying itself closely to the Clinton administration's support for the low-income lending program called "affordable housing."
This program required subprime and other risky lending, but it solidified Fannie's support among Democrats and some Republicans in Congress, and enabled the agency to resist privatization or significant regulation until 2008.
"Under Johnson," write Morgenson and Rosner, "Fannie Mae led the way in encouraging loose lending practices among banks whose loans the company bought. . . . Johnson led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the financial crisis of 2008."
The authors are correct. Far from being a marginal player, Fannie Mae was the source of the decline in mortgage underwriting standards that eventually brought down the financial system. It led rather than followed Wall Street into risky lending.

What is surprising is that this school of thought, based on Barney Frank’s defense of plain, old fashioned, mismanagement of a government sponsored entity (Fannie and Freddie), coupled with restraints on private banks, literally forcing them to make risky loans to individuals, taking a place not over years, but decades, was allowed to go on for so long without either a banker, or Republican, or fellow Democrat screaming from the rooftops that the sky was falling. Therefore, laying the blame on incompetent Progressive ideologist, Barney Frank, is a bit of a stretch, as there were so many hands in the pie of stupidity that Frank, although central to the whole nightmare, was, in essence a bit player.

Dodd, the former Senator from Connecticut, retired just prior to the 2010 midterm elections, his role in the fiasco among other issues related to sweetheart deals and mortgages, would have placed him firmly in retirement either way, Frank ran again and was reelected by a less than stellar margin in the highly gerrymandered Democrat controlled 4th district of Massachusetts. The more that reads into the length and breadth of the debacle, the more one has to question why these bozo’s were allowed to continue unabated, a practice that would eventually crash the housing market and the economy? There were Republican’s that asked, and received answers from Frank and Company that all was well, nothing to see here, move along. Apparently, satisfied, they did just that. That is a failing of the inner DC beltway politics that is akin to someone setting fire to the capitol and having one ask the guy across the aisle if perhaps they should evacuate - upon learning no, they both stay to perish.

It is noteworthy that the Dispatch published the article in the first place, considering that most press is firmly in the Progressive mindset of spreading the wealth, even if it takes down (or perhaps especially if) the financial system. The idea that banks were forced to make loans that were clearly risky, and allowed to make loans which were, in a word, predatory, makes one wonder why those mortgage lenders weren’t more vocal about the destruction of their industry – housing bubble or no – aren’t bankers more likely to be conservative when it comes to saving for the long-haul (their institution, jobs and economy), rather than risking all for a quick buck, at the say so of one Barney Frank?
The whole debacle could have been easily avoided, had there been follow-through from all corners, and a review made that clearly showed incompetence, bad legislation and a ton of bad loans to consumers who could not pay – an immediate halt would have meant no need for bailouts (TARP), and no need for taxpayers to pick up the slack, for decades. It would not have changed the outcome of the election, however, it will impact the next election, as the hole that has been dug, and dug so deep, is now squarely in the hands of progressives, who clearly believe that higher taxes and continued spending will, somehow, right the ship – it did not work in the past, therefore, there is no reason why a failed economic policy would work in the future – as nothing in our nations makeup has changed.

With the Bush Tax Cuts expiring, and the Health Care Act taxes beginning to kick in, those taxpayers still standing, especially in states such as Massachusetts, New York, California, Illinois, will most likely see incises in state taxes as well, and this is across the board, from the very minimal earners to those considered “wealthy” by Obama standards (couple making $250,000 annually). This lack of relief to both the individual taxpayer as well as private sector business will show a drop in retail, as well as a drop in hiring and or continued layoffs through the next year. The end result, “The Buck Stops Here”, will place the blame on one man and one man alone, the President.

Therefore, when one is considering just how bad Barney Frank’s management might be, one must also considering thanking him for eventually ridding the government of certain like-minded Progressives, come 2012. Barney Frank, will, of course, be up for reelection in 2012, along with cohort, Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the House. It is simply the fact that Progressives truly believe that the masses (otherwise known as “we the people”) are too ignorant or busy working three jobs, if one can find a job at all, to pay attention to all of their accomplishments. Therefore, as the general election begins to take shape, and the field narrows in the spring of 2012, to challengers for the White House, Senate Seats and all Congressional Seats (they are all up for reelection), one has to suspect that there just may be changes in the beltway a la 2010.

MA2 2010 Mid-Term Election Update: Tom Wesley (R), Running Against Richard Neal (D), Receives Romney PAC Endorsement

Tom Wesley, the Republican Candidate for U.S. Congress in the MA2 District, has received the endorsement of former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney’s, Free and Strong America PAC. Upon learning of this endorsement, Wesley issued this statement:

“I am grateful to Governor Romney and his Free and Strong America PAC for recognizing the importance of our grassroots-driven campaign. We need to control government spending and to reduce its size. We need to encourage a business climate that creates jobs and fosters entrepreneurship.”

“As the next Congressman from the 2nd District, I will work every day to accomplish these important goals,” Wesley said.

Wesley, who recently debated Richard Neal on WGBY, Public Television in Springfield, MA, has called for the incumbent to hold town-hall style debates- Neal, has to date, declined. WWLP, an NBC affiliate, invited both Neal and Wesley to debate the issues in a less scripted environment, again, Neal declined. The video of Wesley’s WWLP debate, sans Neal, can be viewed here, on youtube.com. WWLP is one of the dominant broadcast affiliates in the Springfield Market, and would have a larger share of viewership than, say, a public television station, which would have put Neal in front of more constituents.

Instead, the apparently sky, Congressman Neal, attended a fundraiser in Northampton at Smith’s College. The star at that event: Victoria Kennedy who rallied campus Democrats and local Democrat politicians,according to the Hampshire Gazette.

This is telling as Neal’s campaign appears to have focused on his base, instead of reaching out to a broader constituency, including the “unenrolleds”. When viewing the incumbents Face Book page and subsequent photographs of events(posted here on Facebook), one is left with the impression the Congressman is most comfortable in smaller controlled settings. Wesley has been reaching out to all possible voters in the district through his campaign’s ground game, which is essential in order to take one of the most Conservative leaning districts in the state. This is why the endorsement from Romney makes perfect sense.

Romney, who will, most likely, seek the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, has endorsed several candidates from the Bay State, including Gubernatorial Candidate, Charlie Baker and Congressional Candidate, Sean Bielat. For a full list of Massachusetts candidate endorsed by Romney’s PAC, visit freestrongamerican.com/our-candidates/MA.

Endorsements by high-profile politicians, such as Romney and Senator Scott Brown, are often viewed by pundits as the future candidate sowing political capital by “investing” in candidates that will, in turn, back them in the future, both on the campaign trail and in public office. These endorsements, although politically partisan in nature, speak volume about the confidence in the individual candidates and their campaigns chances of besting the incumbent in the 2010 mid-terms.

Scott Brown (R-MA) Endorses Nine Massachusetts Congressional Candidates – What are the Odds?

Scott Brown - at it again - An updated version of this cartoon would read: Congress in place of Senate - image frugal cafe


Senator Scott Brown (R-MA)endoresed all nine of the Republican’s running for Congress this November. From the Boston Globe: Brown noted:

“On November 2nd, the people of Massachusetts are ready to send another message to Washington,” Brown said this morning in a statement. “Right now, we need new independent voices in Washington who will fight for more jobs, lower taxes and stand up to the out-of-control government spending that has driven the national debt to record levels. I am proud to support these candidates.”

The fact that the majority of the districts were won by the Brown in the January 19th special Senate Election by, in some cases, a 57% margin, is of interest. What is happening on the ground, and Brown would be keenly aware, is the attitude of the electorate has in no way changed since last January. Therefore, one can bet the house (literally) that more than one Congressional Seat in the Commonwealth is a “toss-up” (See Real Clear Politics) and those that are even factored are not “safe democrat”.

The fact that there are nine viable Republican contenders for seats held by Democrats in Massachusetts is the big story, a story; however that has gone forward with little to no fanfare – so far.
The nine districts in play are:

The MA 1 district: John Olver, D faces Bill Gunn, business owner
The Hampden 2nd (MA 2): Richard Neal (D) faces Tom Wesley, businessman and veteran
The MA3 – James McGovern (D) faces Marty Lamb, business owner and attorney
The MA4 – Barney Frank (D) faces Sean Bielat, former Democrat, and Marine who has a background in business and government.
The MA5 – Niki Tsongas (D) faces Jon Golnik a business owner
The MA6 – John Tierney (D) faces Bill Hudak, a business owner and attorney
The MA7- Ed Markey (D) faces Gerry Dembrowski, business owner and physician
The MA8 – Capuano (D) uncontested – (Safe Democrat)
The MA9th – Stephen Lynch (D) faces Vern Harrison, businessman
The MA10th – No Incumbent: Republican Rick Perry (one of the Few Republican office holders, at present, in the State) faces Democrat and District Attorney, Bill Keating.

There’s a theme here, in case one missed it: all challengers, with the exception of one (Perry) are: business owners, or people that have worked for a living and many, are either active duty and or veterans in and of our Armed Services.

One has to live either under a rock, or in Washington, to believe that all nine districts that are contested will continue to be held by the current occupant. Although the 4th District is receiving a good deal of national attention, (recently) as is the 10th, it is those districts which are under-reported by the local press and written off by the national press, which one might want to invest in. Perhaps not as generous at the $1,000 reportedly given to each campaign by Senator Brown, but a $1.00 here, and $5.00 there would go a long way towards sending another message from the Commonwealth – where the original revolution began. Is that to say each and every one of the nine races will be won by the Republican, no, but one can take a good look at the way the district voted in the election in January, which received, if one would recall, little attention until the 9th hour, when it was apparent, then Republican State Senator Scott Brown stood a chance.

Polling, of which there has been none, with the exception of internal polling on both sides of the aisle in these races, may or may not occur, given the pollsters “intelligence” which comes from – the Beltway. Using Obama’s popularity in 2008 as a barometer as to which way the wind will blow in the 2010 mid-terms may find many pollsters wishing they had instead based it on the mood of the nation, and the individual candidates within in race, and the districts most reasonable barometer – the way the public voted for the man who endorsed all nine of these candidates. Although one might argue, that Brown’s motivation was to pump up one or more of the candidates that appear to be capable of upending an incumbent, one must also consider that Brown, being no dummy, might be laying the ground work of political capital for the future, in both working with members of Congress of like mind, and of having the endorsement of Republican Representatives from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts backing him in 2012. Smart money is on the later.