Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Obama voted “present” on Fannie/Freddie reform

posted at 9:20 am on October 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view

Barack Obama has claimed that he foresaw the subprime mortgage collapse and took steps to warn the Treasury — by writing a letter.  That claim has come in two presidential debates.  Peter Wallison reminds Wall Street Journal readers of the obvious in pointing out that Obama serves as a Senator and had the power to draft legislation, not letters, to prevent the collapse.  Instead, Obama voted present:

Finally, on the matter of deregulation and the financial crisis, Sen. Obama should consider his own complicity in the failure of Congress to adopt legislation that might have prevented the subprime meltdown.

In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it. To get the bill to a vote in the Senate, a few Democratic votes were necessary to limit debate. This was a time for the leadership Sen. Obama says he can offer, but neither he nor any other Democrat stepped forward.

Instead, by his own account, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary, allegedly putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. This is revealing; if true, it indicates Sen. Obama knew there was a problem with subprime lending — but was unwilling to confront his own party by pressing for legislation to control it. As a demonstration of character and leadership capacity, it bears a strong resemblance to something else in Sen. Obama’s past: voting present.

I mentioned this in an earlier debate analysis.  It demonstrates a key difference between Obama and John McCain.  When McCain saw the potential for crisis, he took action by co-sponsoring Chuck Hagel’s Fannie/Freddie reform bill that would have increased regulation on the two GSEs.  He spoke in the Senate for its passage.

What did Barack Obama do?  He wrote a letter.  He didn’t bother to co-sponsor the bill that could have prevented this year’s financial collapse, or to even allow it to come to a vote.  Obama talked (allegedly — we have yet to see this letter) while McCain took action.

Now Obama and the same Democrats who pushed Fannie and Freddie to buy a trillion dollars in bad loans want to blame “deregulation” for the crisis.  It wasn’t deregulation, and as Wallison points out, the industry didn’t get deregulated at all.  Congress created this crisis by pushing Fannie and Freddie into not just buying subprime paper but into transforming it into securities that infected the entire financial system.

Read all of Wallison’s column to see how intellectually dishonest the “deregulation” argument truly is.  That’s all Obama has left, however, to distract people from his inaction and his support of government distortion of the lending market to achieve artificial social-policy goals.  That’s what makes his alliance with former Fannie Mae chief Jim Johnson such a revealing data point about Obama and the Democrats in general.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Why doesn’t McCain come back with this when Obama says he warned about it? Are McCain’s researchers that inept or is McCain too busy saying “my freinds” to think fast enough on his feet?

Maybe I have the wrong idea about what a debate is supposed to be. To me, they rarely respond directly to what the other side says which leads me to believe politicians debating is a pointless activity. I don’t know. I’m just frustrated I guess.

Mr_Magoo on October 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM

If he becomes POTUS will he be able to vote “present” if we get attacked again?
carbon_footprint on October 15, 2008
____________________________________________________________

Silly, when Obama is POTUS we won’t have to worry about being attacked. Everyone will love us.

Isaiah 11:6
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Goodeye_Closed on October 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Has anyone actually seen this alleged letter? Maybe the sheer awesomeness of its prose makes it too dangerous for a mere mortal to look at directly.

Chuck Schick on October 15, 2008 at 12:31 PM

Ed continues to try to get the SEC and the Bush administration off the hook for all of this. It wasn’t Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac that leveraged themselves 30:1 to sell credit default swaps and other derivative securities. It was the SEC and the current administration that granted the Wall Street firms an exemption from capital requirements in 2004.

See link: http://www.nysun.com/business/ex-sec-official-blames-agency-for-blow-up/86130 to the New York Sun article. An execerpt follows:

“The Securities and Exchange Commission can blame itself for the current crisis. That is the allegation being made by a former SEC official, Lee Pickard, who says a rule change in 2004 led to the failure of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch.

The SEC allowed five firms — the three that have collapsed plus Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — to more than double the leverage they were allowed to keep on their balance sheets and remove discounts that had been applied to the assets they had been required to keep to protect them from defaults.

Making matters worse, according to Mr. Pickard, who helped write the original rule in 1975 as director of the SEC’s trading and markets division, is a move by the SEC this month to further erode the restraints on surviving broker-dealers by withdrawing requirements that they maintain a certain level of rating from the ratings agencies.”

……
The so-called net capital rule was created in 1975 to allow the SEC to oversee broker-dealers, or companies that trade securities for customers as well as their own accounts. It requires that firms value all of their tradable assets at market prices, and then it applies a haircut, or a discount, to account for the assets’ market risk. So equities, for example, have a haircut of 15%, while a 30-year Treasury bill, because it is less risky, has a 6% haircut.

The net capital rule also requires that broker dealers limit their debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1, although they must issue an early warning if they begin approaching this limit, and are forced to stop trading if they exceed it, so broker dealers often keep their debt-to-net capital ratios much lower.

In 2004, the European Union passed a rule allowing the SEC’s European counterpart to manage the risk both of broker dealers and their investment banking holding companies. In response, the SEC instituted a similar, voluntary program for broker dealers with capital of at least $5 billion, enabling the agency to oversee both the broker dealers and the holding companies.

This alternative approach, which all five broker-dealers that qualified — Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley — voluntarily joined, altered the way the SEC measured their capital. Using computerized models, the SEC, under its new Consolidated Supervised Entities program, allowed the broker dealers to increase their debt-to-net-capital ratios, sometimes, as in the case of Merrill Lynch, to as high as 40-to-1. It also removed the method for applying haircuts, relying instead on another math-based model for calculating risk that led to a much smaller discount.

The SEC justified the less stringent capital requirements by arguing it was now able to manage the consolidated entity of the broker dealer and the holding company, which would ensure it could better manage the risk……”

jim m on October 15, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Obama reminds me of the old west “snake oil” salesman with a pitch something like, “try Dr. Barack’s Miracle Elixer…guaranteed to bring about the change you need…the change you want…Why, it’ll not only heal you, it’ll heal the land. Just pour it on the ground and watch desert turned to the finest top soil. Take two tablespoons before dinner and by the next day your bank account will double…triple I tell you! Guaranteed to treat snakebite, sunburn, gunshot wounds, the piles, bloody flux, constipation and diaper rash. Now…who’ll be the first to step up and try Dr. Barack’s Miracle Elixer?”

And so they come…by the millions…buying into Dr. Barack’s promises. By the time they figure out they’ve been taken it’s too late. Dr. Barack’s on the noon train to Washington.

sdd on October 15, 2008 at 1:31 PM

What is THE ONE going to do as President when a bill comes before him and he can’t vote “Present”?

ammo john on October 15, 2008 at 1:44 PM

GREAT NEW ANTI-OBAMA AD BY LET FREEDOM RING, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, dmarie.

Just wondering…are you guys seeing any ads about this stuff in your area (527’s, RNC or otherwise?) I’m not seeing much here in Michigan…but maybe it’s because I tivo everything and am fast forwarding through them all.

dmarie on October 15, 2008 at 9:40 AM

I haven’t seen this ad aired yet & I get channels in all three viewing areas (NY/NJ/PA) but I saw Frank Luntz (the guy with the focus group and the live reaction graph) this morning on Fox with this new ad. He called this the MOST FAVORABLE NEGATIVE AD

NightmareOnKStreet on October 15, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Q: What was the catalysts of today’s economic issues?

A: The COMMUNIty ReinveSTment ACT.

WashJeff on October 15, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Has anyone actually seen this alleged letter? Maybe the sheer awesomeness of its prose makes it too dangerous for a mere mortal to look at directly.

Chuck Schick on October 15, 2008 at 12:31 PM

FWIW, I posted it on p. 1 of the comments…

Q: What else did Barry do vis a vis “warnings” about Fannie Mae?

A: Absolutely Nothing

Obama, Durbin propose federal mortgage reforms
Wednesday, February 15, 2006

CHICAGO TRIBUNE
By David Jackson

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) proposed a sweeping set of federal reforms Tuesday to combat mortgage fraud, ratcheting up enforcement and creating a national database of brokers who have been disciplined…

Oh-so predictably, the finale brings us right back to more money for Acorn:

Obama’s proposed bill, written in consultation with the Treasury Department, Madigan and Chicago police, would authorize increased federal funding for mortgage counseling. It also would grant funding to the state agencies that license and monitor appraisers and other real estate professionals.

Buy Danish on October 15, 2008 at 2:21 PM

Goodeye_Closed on October 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Hmmm…
You quoted the Biblical passage “and a little child shall lead them”…
You had been referring to Obama…
Obama is male…
A male “little child” is a boy…
RACIST!

jgapinoy on October 15, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Too bad he put that letter with his medical records, Columbia transcripts and birth certificate so we’ll never be able to see it.

snaggletoothie on October 15, 2008 at 4:48 PM

What did Barack Obama do? He wrote a letter.

I wish Sen. McCain would have the nerve to say something like “What did Sen. Obama do? He mailed it in!”

Blaise on October 15, 2008 at 5:26 PM

Actually, Obama’s letter wasn’t even about sub-prime loans or that they were bad. It was all about his STOP FRAUD Act, which was all about mortgage fraud, not about reigning in Fannie Mae or doing anything about sub-prime loans.

Seixon on October 15, 2008 at 5:48 PM

I don’t think the publc really thinks the Dems caused all of this and don’t care what Obama did. I think McCain needs to move into what he’s going to do for us to get his numbers up rather than try and bring Obamas down, otherwise we’re sunk.

johnnyU on October 15, 2008 at 6:31 PM

The July Fannie/Freddie bailout included language to insure $420 of every $100K in new mortgages go to organizations lke ACORN….bet folk didn’t know that.

JIMV on October 15, 2008 at 7:09 PM

What was on the Senate agenda instead of the Fannie/Freddie reform? It would make a good campaign ad if it was something like bike paths or “Bush lied” crap.

deadman on October 16, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.