However, I'm not blaming him for the disaster that lays at our feet. What I am blaming him for is his sunny assessment of our finances even as it was crumbling like the Roman Empire.
First, let me make one thing abundantly clear. I put the majority of the blame for our financial mess on the Republicans. In fact, I would say this is about 70% the fault of the Republicans and 30% the fault of the Democrats. The reason I say this is because throughout the lead-up to this mess, it was the Republicans that controlled Congress the vast majority of the time. Looking back through the past 7 Congresses (Congress changes every two years), the Reps controlled the House for 12 of the past 14 years! They also controlled the Senate for 10 of those 14 years and had the Presidency for the past eight. With that kind of control it's hard to believe this wouldn't be mostly your fault even if you just left it alone. During those years I believe a deal was struck between the Reps and the Dems that caused this whole mess. The deal went like this; The Democrats wanted more loans for their constituents, (I.E. minorities, poor whites and inner cites that were decaying) and the Republicans wanted deregulation of the financial sector. Since the problem was that no banks wanted to be passing out loans for high risk cities and people, the Republicans found the solution. Deregulate the industry, they give out sub-prime loans and in return they get to bundle the loans and sell them on the open market (something that wasn't allowed before). The Rep constituents get to make profit and farm-out the risk, the Dem constituents get the loans that they couldn't (and probably shouldn't) have gotten before.
Now, here's were the Democrats get their blame.
Once the Democrats found themselves back in the driving seat of Congress, do they start shouting from the highest hills that our finances are a mess? No. Barney Frank gets put into a position that oversees the entire financial services industry, and what does he do? Does he immediately sound the warning bell that all is not right in our financial house? No. Instead he does exactly what Ken Lay, the CEO of Enron, did to his stockholders...he lied. He said that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were sound even as the bricks were falling off the buildings. He knew that there would be political capital to pay by the Dems if Fannie and Freddie were exposed as unsound, so he hid that fact from the people, the press, and most importantly, from the people who owned Freddie and Fannie stock.
When we pulled out the torches and pitchforks and went hunting Ken Lay after the Enron fiasco, the luckless stockholders had lost over $60 billion dollars and a whole business went down the tubes. The reason we went after Ken Lay and his cohorts with such zeal is because of the innocent investors that lost their savings. Ken Lay's lies cost people their livelihoods. Now, compare that to what Barney Frank's lies have cost us. It's hard to put an exact figure on the amount lost, but here's what we do know. Fannie and Freddie hold a combined stake of over a trillion in mortgages. Their stock has fallen by 90% over the past year, costing investors tens of billions if not hundreds. We the taxpayers are on the hook for an estimated $200 billion and they're still asking for more.
But, before you go blaming only the Democrats for Freddie and Fannie, take a look at how they spread out their lobbying dollars.
The bottom line on all this is that while Ken Lay got what he deserved for his lying and treachery, Barney Frank has walked completely away from his role in the collapse of a giant industry that controlled nearly half of all our mortgages and contributed (if not caused) the current situation we're in. For him to stay in a position with that magnatude of power when he's already demonstrated that he can't be trusted to tell the truth is criminal. I'm calling for a full "what he knew and when he knew it" investigation into Rep. Frank and his office. Is Barney Frank as bad as Ken Lay? No. He's far worse, and he's on our payroll. H.C.
4 comments:
they're all crooked. put a single mother who kept her family fed and clothed and stayed out of massive debt while working a minimum wage job in charge. she won't put up with this BS and she'd get the finances back where they should be.
(yes, i know i'm am grossly oversimplifying matters but the principles are there)
Hey lime,
I like that idea! Simple or not. Any single mom knows what it's like to budget, something these people seem to totally not understand. Everytime I think about how big a number a billion is(much less a trillion!) I break out in hives. The thing that seems to be missing in all this is accountability! How can these politicians get away with raping and destoying our economy and we're not hanging them from lamp posts?? Hell, so far no one has even lost their job except Bush and he was on his way out anyway. If I destroyed the place I work by my own greed and incompetence I would be on the unemployment line. Maybe more single moms should consider running for office (If they only had the time) Thanks for your comment!
Truthfully, I don't place too much fault on Frank or the other folks in the legislature pushing for increased homeownership for "minorites." In a society where worth is loosely based on how much property - QUALITY property - people own, I can't fault people for trying to live up to those standards. This raises an important point about the systemic deterioration of the "affordable" areas for minorities. The areas with all the decent, livable, and quality homes are understandably the areas most often sought.
But...
Barney Frank's scent is all over this financial fiasco. In his attempts to put people in nice and livable homes, he made errors in judgement. Even if his decisions were erroneously good willed, they were ultimately erroneous.
But besides all that, Frank's inability to estimate what would happen is where he completely dropped the ball. I mean, the dude actually acknowledged how Freddie and Fannie were...and I quote..."in good shape." Again, I understand the desire to put people in decent housing. But not to be able to see this collapse is dim-witted.
But ultimately, the biggest question for me is: who will oppose him? Given his status in Washington, who in the House will have the gumption to call him on his BS, even at the risk of reprisal? Frank may sound like a cute wittle six year old when he speaks, but I suspect he'd have lots of bite for those brave enough to acknowledge his role in this mess.
Hey Dre,
I think the idea of affordable housing for minorities, as well as poor whites, single moms, and a host of others is a noble idea. Subsidizing is a good approach if it goes along with encouraging better behavior. I think a bigger problem was the using of that property to back loans that were far too much of the net worth of the property. As far as Frank's intent, I think it was probably rather noble in it's goals. However, as we've already seen, lying to the people about the worth of their stock is a different issue altogether. If I can't even trust the government's assessment of my stocks worth, how could I possibly trust some CEO? The real crime of what Rep. Frank did, as well as what Ken Lay did, was in the deceiving about the stocks true financial situation. The problem we're seeing with the stock market right now is directly related to people not trusting anyone's assessment of anything's worth. Frank contributed to that in a big way. I also think your right on about other Reps being more than a little hesitant on taking someone so powerful and well-connected on. That's why "we the people" need to be shouting for his head.
Post a Comment