About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

NPR's Naylor suggested McCain is opposed to government "bail[] out," did not note his approval of Bear Stearns deal

March 28, 2008 4:32 pm ET
image

Please upgrade your flash player. The audio for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a MP3 version of the audio.

SUMMARY: In a report on congressional action in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, National Public Radio's Brian Naylor uncritically reported McCain's statement that it's not the government's job to "bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." Naylor did not note that McCain reportedly agreed with the Federal Reserve's decision to extend a $30 billion line of credit to facilitate the acquisition of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase.

15 Comments

On the March 28 edition of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, reporting on congressional action in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis and the near bankruptcy of global investment bank Bear Stearns, correspondent Brian Naylor asserted that Sen. John McCain is taking a 'go slow' approach and uncritically reported, "McCain said it was not the government's job to, as he put it, 'bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.' " But Naylor did not note that McCain reportedly agreed with the Federal Reserve's decision to extend a $30 billion line of credit to facilitate the acquisition of Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase. Indeed, as Media Matters for America noted, on March 26, the Associated Press reported that the Federal Reserve "essentially bailed out the investment house Bear Stearns," adding that McCain disagreed with the suggestion that the Federal Reserve "went too far in helping" the bank. The article quoted him saying: "It's a close call, but I don't think so."

From the March 28 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:

RENEE MONTAGNE (host): Congress has one thing on its mind these days -- the economy and how to deal with the crisis stretching from Wall Street to Main Street. Lawmakers have come up with several dozen bills. They're considering everything from regulating Wall Street's investment banks, after the collapse of Bear Stearns, to allowing judges to rewrite mortgages. NPR's Brian Naylor has more.

[begin audio clip]

NAYLOR: It's the subprime mortgage crisis that ignited the brushfire that has now engulfed the U.S. economy, and it is there where Congress will first turn. The Senate is expected to take up a package of housing cures that include a controversial proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to change the terms of mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure. The provision is strongly opposed by the banking industry and the Bush administration, and it lost a procedural vote when it came to the Senate floor late last month. But Democratic Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois says that was then:

DURBIN: Since that last vote, we've seen a lot of changes. We saw what happened to Bear Stearns and how this administration raced to their rescue. Now, whether you agree with that or not, it seems that there should be a focus on trying to help those families about to lose their homes as much as there was on trying to help this major Wall Street firm.

NAYLOR: Bear Stearns is the big investment bank that faced bankruptcy this month before the Federal Reserve Board arranged for another big bank, JP Morgan, to ride to its rescue. Democrats have been making the fairness argument, a key rallying point behind their proposals to help middle income homeowners who face losing their homes. Another proposal on the table involves the Federal Housing Administration, or FHA. Democrats led by Barney Frank in the House and Christopher Dodd in the Senate have proposed allowing the FHA to provide up to $300 billion to help refinance troubled mortgages. Dodd told NPR that each foreclosure has a ripple effect.

DODD: It isn't just the foreclosed property that causes the problem. There's the next door neighbor, the community that also suffers. For every one foreclosure in a square block, one-eighth square mile, there is a decline in value almost immediately of 1 percent of every other home in that square block. There's an increase of crime of 2 percent almost immediately in that area.

NAYLOR: An indication of the severity of the housing crisis was evident this week as all three presidential candidates addressed the issue. Yesterday, Democrat Barack Obama outlined his support of the Frank-Dodd bill:

OBAMA [audio clip]: It offers a responsible and fair way to help bring an end to the foreclosure crisis. It asks both sides to sacrifice, while preventing a long term collapse that could have enormous ramifications for the most responsible lenders and borrowers, as well as the American people as a whole.

NAYLOR: Obama has proposed an additional $30 billion economic stimulus plan, as has his rival, New York Democrat Hillary Clinton:

CLINTON: This money could be used to purchase foreclosed or distressed properties, which cities and states could then resell to low-income families or convert into affordable rental housing. It could be used to help neighborhoods with high foreclosure rates, avoid increased crime and blight, by investing in everything from police and fire support, to graffiti removal and better lighting.

Republican John McCain, however, is taking a "go slow" approach. McCain said it was not the government's job to, as he put it, "bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers."

McCAIN: Any assistance must be temporary and must not reward people who are irresponsible at the expense of those who weren't. In this crisis, as in all I may face in the future, I will not allow dogma to override common sense.

NAYLOR: The Bush administration is taking a similarly cautious approach when it comes to a housing rescue. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson indicated this week that he does favor some increased federal oversight of investment banks, but he cautioned lawmakers against moving too quickly on regulations or housing, saying some of the proposals before Congress could cause more harm then good.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dbeden4153 (March 28, 2008 4:54 pm ET)
         
      no no no, bail out for Homeowners...the corporations are more important than people.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (March 28, 2008 4:57 pm ET)
         

      I just sent NPR an e-mail on this.

      It's pretty sad when a so-called Public Radio Station can't even get the facts straight.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 28, 2008 5:09 pm ET)
           

        Oh man, are you moonbats playing that "evil corporations" and "innocent average Americans" game again. Tommy and Wesley should be here to lecture you soon on who the bad guys really are.

        Cheez & rice, first Pat Buchanan has to suffer Black people not showing enough gratitude to white people, now you guys have to attack the corporations who want nothing but to provide us with paychecks and things to buy with them. Ingrates.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (March 28, 2008 5:40 pm ET)
             

          Wholeheartedly agree, Colonel.

          Unfettered corporations will save us. A deregulated economy and free markets are the last best hope of mankind.

          With fewer freeloaders suckling from the government teat, the corporations can get this country working again. I say let the corporations have their fair share.

          I gladly offer my life and the lives of my children, to grease the wheels of commerce. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 28, 2008 5:52 pm ET)
               

            "...fewer freeloaders suckling from the government teat"

            That's right, and I know you'll agree, those old people are the worst. With their government medicine and velcro shoes, let's see how they do mano a mano against the younger and richer.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (March 28, 2008 5:57 pm ET)
                 

              If a person reaches an advanced age that means that he's had plenty of time to make it. If he or she hasn't prospered by then, they never will.

              The young people need a lesson. Coddling the codgers let's them know that they too can be a slacker and expect society to pull them along with the rising tide of success.

               This must end.  To quote one of our most esteemed economists, E. Smith Barney Fife, "Nip it in the bud".

              Report Abuse
            • Author by donaldmaddog5642 (March 29, 2008 6:58 am ET)
                 
              To the Col. Sanders,

              I really like the way you think, Col. We are on the same page. The only proper way to respond to these insane events is with sarcasm. There are only two or three neocons that post here anyway. By the way, do you have any friends or relatives in Canada I can stay with for the next 4 years....just in case?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 30, 2008 2:36 am ET)
                   

                Thanks, Donald. One has to be careful, because even the most over-the-top satire isn't that far from the occasional dead-earnest poster.

                I was hanging out with a young woman from Vancouver recently, but I didn't think to make any Canadian Connections.I should be more calculating.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Leftwingcenter (March 30, 2008 11:12 am ET)
                     
                  Well, Colonel, I was just wondering if my 11-year-old son could be taught to like back bacon and Gordon Lightfoot, since by the end of a McCain second term he'll have turned 18 and be draft-eligible to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Iran, or wherever else President Bomb Bomb Iran wants to throw a war...
                  Report Abuse
    • Author by Leftwingcenter (March 28, 2008 5:00 pm ET)
         

      Mr. Keating-Five McCain already has a history of greasing the skids for Big Finance.  Just ask Charles Keating...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by twocents2much (March 29, 2008 3:34 am ET)
         

      The liberal position on this issue should not be in favor of bailing out underwater mortgage holders. The people who will pay the most dearly are those who have no claim to property. Their paychecks, already taxed to the hilt because they couldn't afford responsible mortgages, will be gutted in support of the debtors that we euphemistically call homeowners. And current tenants  will probably never be able to enter the ranks of homeowners themselves, because the government will be using their tax dollars to sustain ridiculously inflated prices.

       Why do none of the so-called liberals see how antithetical this is to progressive public policy? It's socialism turned on its head -- taking from the peasantry to underwrite an aristocracy.

      The worst of the bunch is the despicably elitist Paul Krugman, who once went on a rant about how rent control squeezes supply, thereby raising prices for newer tenants.  Now he's beating the drum for price controls that benefit a faux gentry. 

       If he were a true progressive, he would insist that renters -- specifically those with good credit who were economically disenfranchised by their unwillingness to take bogus loans -- get dibs on any discounted properties. 

        Krugman likes to talk about "keeping people in their homes,'' which is absurd. The people who are underwater aren't in "their'' homes.  They own not a splinter of the places where they live. They're renters with gigantic tax breaks and a protected status accorded to them by this country's widespread worship of a right-wing cult -- the ownership society. Krugman can't admit it, but he's one of the high priests.

            And still, he has the gall to call himself a progressive.  The whole  thing is Orwellian.

       

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dunman1 (March 29, 2008 10:14 am ET)
         
      I love the way McCain says  "it's not the government's job to, as he put it, 'bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.' But I see it's ALWAYS our job to bail out the Government when it acts irresponsibly. Hey John! OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE!!!! GET IT?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by happygoluckytoyou2345 (March 31, 2008 11:47 am ET)
         

      to begin with, my new practice.... and i recommend to others....

      PLEASE REFER TO MCCAIN with the title he has been avoiding for months... The Republican McCain...  It could also be written as John "The Republican" McCain

      HIS PRESS MASTERS have avoided "branding" him because he knows what damage his own party does to his image.... but YOU IS WHAT YOU IS... I say "wear it proudly, like a lapel pin"

      As to his TWO views of a single topic... if you follow the money, you will see that John "The Republican" McCain, like all of his fellow Republicans live and die for "CHEAP LABOR"

      Their response to what country to "liberate" is based upon its affect on their bottom line.  OIL... liberate the,....RAPE AND PILLAGE... not-so-much.

      LOOK TO WHAT TYPE OF COMPANY, WHO IS HURT, WHO IS HELPED... and the answer to ANY question will be answered for you....

      If those who would be hurt are wealthy... BAIL OUT  (think banks, munitions, pharma)... if it would hurt the working poor...NOTHING (think Katrina, Union Busting, OUTsourcing labor, WalMart, offshore tax scams AND those being ruined by the housing market collapse)

      IT IS REALLY A LOT EASIER THAN YOU THINK TO PREDICT WHAT JOHN "THE REPUBLICAN" MCCAIN WILL SAY AND DO

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.