About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN's John King did not challenge Cheney's false claim that "chairmen" Frank, Dodd were "stone wall" to Fannie/Freddie reform

March 15, 2009 7:14 pm ET

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

EMBED

SUMMARY: On CNN's State of the Union, host John King did not challenge former Vice President Dick Cheney's false claim that the Bush administration tried "to impose reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we ran into a stone wall on Capitol Hill in the form of the chairmen and -- of the Banking Committee in the House and the Senate, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd." In fact, Frank and Dodd were not "chairmen" until 2007, after which time Congress passed oversight legislation of Fannie and Freddie.

53 Comments

On the March 15 edition of CNN's State of the Union, host John King did not challenge former Vice President Dick Cheney's false claim that the Bush administration tried "to impose reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we ran into a stone wall on Capitol Hill in the form of the chairmen and -- of the Banking Committee in the House and the Senate, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd." In fact, Frank and Dodd were not "chairmen" of their respective committees until 2007; prior to that, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and failed to pass oversight legislation. Indeed, it wasn't until Democrats controlled Congress that oversight legislation of Fannie and Freddie finally passed.

As Media Matters has repeatedly noted, in early 2007, as the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank sponsored H.R. 1427, a bill to create the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), granting that agency "general supervisory and regulatory authority over" Fannie and Freddie and directing it to reform the companies' business practices and regulate their exposure to credit and market risk. The FHFA was eventually created after Congress incorporated provisions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said were "similar" to those of H.R. 1427 into the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which Bush signed into law on July 30, 2008.

Furthermore, before taking over the House Financial Services Committee chairmanship, Frank worked with committee chairman Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) on the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which would have established the FHFA to replace the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) as overseer of the activities of Fannie and Freddie. After voting for the bill in committee, Frank voted against final passage of the bill on the House floor, stating that he was doing so because an amendment added to the bill on the House floor imposed restrictions on the kinds of nonprofit organizations that could receive funding under the bill.

From the March 15 edition of CNN's State of the Union:

CHENEY: We are in the midst of a worldwide economic period of considerable difficulty here. So it's -- I think in terms of trying to assess it and trying to fix it and undress it, it's important to understand that. It doesn't do just to go back and say, well, George Bush was president and that's why everything's screwed up, because that's simply not true.

KING: I think some people do go back, though, sir, and say -- understanding that. And the Democrats were in charge the last two years of your administration; that's a point that should be made. And you're right, other governments around the world have been caught up in this.

But I think some Americans say, wait a minute, he was the MBA. Dick Cheney was the veteran Washington insider and a CEO who came back into government. How could they have not seen this coming? Was everybody, not just the administration -- I'm not trying to pin this on the Republicans -- but was the White House, everybody in Congress regardless of party, leaders around the world so caught up in the boom that they had blinders on and didn't see the warning signs?

CHENEY: I think so. I don't recall, you know, sort of a general warning of concern until things started to turn -- turn south on us. I do remember, and I mentioned earlier, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

As best I can tell from looking at the evidence, the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was one of the key ingredients that caused the subsequent financial problem and economic recession. We did try, earlier in the administration, to impose reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we ran into a stone wall on Capitol Hill in the form of the chairmen and -- of the Banking Committee in the House and the Senate, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The Democrats absolutely opposed any effort to reform those two institutions, and I think the collapse of those institutions, as much as anything, contributed to the financial difficulties we've been living with since.

KING: I want to move on to other issues after a break, but before we go to the break, any regrets about the financial bailout package that started in your administration? The Obama administration is building on it. They say they're fixing some things they thought went wrong in the Bush administration, but I know hindsight is easy, but looking back now from outside of the government, was it a mistake?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Marker (March 15, 2009 8:33 pm ET)
         
      John King had trouble asking tough questions because its hard when your on your knees in front of Dick.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pauldd (March 17, 2009 2:17 am ET)
           

        We should begin to see a pattern here with John King.  He is clearly smitten with right-wing mythology.  It's so obvious that with a Republican majority (in the house senate and executive branch) Frank and Dodd could not have blocked ANYTHING that they wanted to pass.  But in fact, not a single piece of financial sector regulatory legislation even came out of COMMITTEE in the period from 2001 through 2006 when the sub-prime market was booming, let alone get filibustered on the floor.  You have to be ideologically blind, totally ignorant of the legislative process or completely dishonest to allow this continuing right-wing meme of blaming Frank and Dodd to go unchallenged.  So, John King, which of these three categories do you fit into?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (March 15, 2009 8:58 pm ET)
         

      Well...

      In all fairness... Dodd and Franks did not exactly aid in the cause of forcing Mae and Mac in not becoming the for-profit disasters they are today...

      But even with that said... The Republicans had been in charge of the Congress since 1994... and several of the problems have occured since!

      FYI: Clinton WAS NOT a liberal... he was more a conservative than anything else... the reason he is seen as a liberal by the right-wing idealogs... is because he tried to help us little people, while giving away the country to foreign investors!

      Bush did not even bother trying help any of us... that is why he was loved bby the corporate whores and right-wing zealots!

      And shock of all shocks... We the People finally woke up enough to realize that Grampy and Caribu were nothing more than another 4 years of Bush/Cheney regime style governing.

      Perhaps now that this country has seen and barely survived Bush/Cheney and a Republican Congress... Obama and the rest of the Dems will get it through their collective heads that they can no longer so easily take corporate money without some repercussions?

      Time will tell...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by robrob (March 15, 2009 9:56 pm ET)
         

      "The Republicans had been in charge of the Congress since 1994..."

      Absolutely, funny how the Republicans were so ineffectual they let the minority party steamroll over them when they held the House, Senate and the Presidency from 2000 - 2006.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fairliberal (March 15, 2009 10:45 pm ET)
         
      http://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/bush-and-mccain-each-tried-to-reform-fannie-mae-democrats-blocked-them-both-times/ While he is incorrect in identifying Frank and Dodd as the chairman, he is absolutly correct in stating that the Bush Admin attempted to reform Fannie since the early days of the admin
      Report Abuse
      • Author by thejbomb65 (March 16, 2009 11:19 am ET)
           

        yes but explain to me how Dodd and Frank, as ranking membres of their committees could stone wall any sort of reform.

        the answer is they can't not unless the Republicans on the committee say ok we are going to cave.

        thats the point you seem to miss is that the republicans could have done whatever they wanted and Frank and Dodd could do little more than scream and yell and not actually stop any kind of legislation

        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (March 16, 2009 1:07 pm ET)
             

          Your premise that the reps could have done anything they wanted is pure fiction. The Reps never had a majority large enough to do what they wanted, not during the Clinton years or the Bush years. The largest majority in the senate was 56 votes, that was 1992 when the dems controlled the house. just recently we have seen that the dems even with 58 votes needed reps help to pass the stimulus. And during the 1st 4 years of the Bush admin the senate was virtually a tie. To suggest that the reps had a controlling majority is just a liberal myth. In the house the reps did have a majority, the largest of which was about 30 votes. These majorities were smaller than what the dems enjoy now and they still need reps help. Lawmakers from either party as a rule do not bring legislation to the floors unless they think or know they have the votes to pass them. The reps knew they could not pass the reforms without dem support and they did nott have it. Check my numbers, they can easily be found at wikipedia.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 16, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
               

            FL,

            Could you show me evidence of a democratic-led filibuster of Fannie/Freddie reforms?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by thejbomb65 (March 16, 2009 4:00 pm ET)
               

            you would be correct if you read what i wrote.

            see here is the thing.......when a party has a majority. they can bring a vote to the floor.

            my premise was that Dodd as a senator and Frank as a representitive could not really stonewall any legislation unless some republican members of congress went along with them.

            so im debunking the absurdity that is your talking points that Frank and Dodd are to blame for this.

            but go ahead and twist things how you like. personally i think the fiction is in what you try to paint what i wrote. but you have been consistent in doing so, so i can't be surprised by it. the problem is you hear only what you wish to hear. and not live up to the facts.

            here is the facts: democrats were in the minority from 1994-until 2006.

            fact. as dems were the minority party, they have no ability to block any legislation from a floor vote.

            fact. for legislation to die in committee republican members of the house and senate would have to join the dems. so if the legislation didn't make it to the floor.....that means that a few republicans actually voted against the reform legislation.

            nwo i know your going to say im lying and i dont have any facts......well scream it as loud as you like. wrtie as much as you want. that doesn't mean that your right though. but your going to say what you want and don't really care what i say because you say im part of the evil liberal world. too bad im a REPUBLICAN. im not a neo con like yourself.

            let me know how things shake up when Dick and W get found guilty of crimes against humanity and are executed.

            then where will you be

            Report Abuse
    • Author by fairliberal (March 15, 2009 10:53 pm ET)
         

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYz1rbB5V1s

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (March 15, 2009 11:01 pm ET)
           

        and dem after dem standing up and saying they supported the reform but were against the faith based Katrina amendment that had absolutely nothing to do with reform just never crossed your mind, right? The fact that that very amendment was purposely planted by republicans to give them another toy to bring out at a later day and play with never convinced you that republicans were never really serious about reform, did it? Republicans could have used the same bluster they gave us with their much vaunted "nuclear option" but didn't, very telling.

        Up next: watch our right wing friend proceed to blame the entire fiasco on CRA and absolve the republican majorities of any wrongdoing anywhere.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (March 15, 2009 11:18 pm ET)
             

          We have met the enemy, and he is unconcious. http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/republican-districts-lead-way-foreclo

          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (March 15, 2009 11:27 pm ET)
               

            I actually saw an attempt to blame that on democrats today. Someone had the bright idea to pick one city (no actual criteria for choice) in each district and made the statement that every city had a democratic governor (oops, my bad, that was the criteria - it had to have a dem in charge!), ergo it was really the democrat's fault the entire district has a foreclosure crisis!

            Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (March 15, 2009 11:40 pm ET)
               

            Man, did you check the comments from your link? Look at this link I found about credit card companies reducing your limit below your current balance and then charging you a fee for being over. How dishonest is that?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by eweston8542983 (March 16, 2009 10:10 am ET)
                 

              I looked this morning. Yah I've had some experience with hidden credit card traps, gas station minimum draws and such. Not totally comfortable with my current balances, but I do have some wiggle room. 

              Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (March 16, 2009 12:25 am ET)
             

          Katrina was 2007, perhaps you did not see the date on the NY Times article was 2003, your post makes no sense what so ever.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (March 16, 2009 7:43 am ET)
               

            And you fail to answer the real question behind all of this.

            In 2003, both the House and Senate were majority of republicans. The White House, was republican. They, meaning the republicans, had steamrolled just about everything else that they had ever wanted through Congress at that time, why not this? Why did the democrats have to do it in 2007 after we took control? 

            The republicans had majorities at that time that were filibuster proof in the Senate, and yet, they couldn't overcome a few objections to actually, you know, get this passed?

            What a load of BS to lay this at the feet of Frank and Dodd. Again, especially when the republicans were jamming everything else through that they wanted. Could it be that they didn't really want these reforms? Hmm.. Which party is known as the party that doesn't like regulation? Republicans. Who was in control of the legislative and executive branch at the time? Yes, republicans.

            To say that Frank and Dodd had objections to this, which they did, doesn't mean it shouldn't have gotten passed with the vast majorities that republicans enjoyed.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (March 16, 2009 9:48 am ET)
                 

              You should check your facts, the Senate in 2003 was 51 to 49 in favor of the reps, after the 2000 election it was tied. Is that your idea of filibuster proof? You are so quick to dispute what I say but your facts are usually wrong. You are simply ignorant about most of the facts of this very complicated and drawn out issue. Yes the dems passed some reforms in 2007, AFTER they supported Fannie and Freddie and the dems like Frank Raines and allowed them to destroy the company . The reps had been calling for those reforms since the inception of the Bush admin. I have repeatedly posted links to clips of the congressional hearings but of course they are ignored , after all, why trust your eyes and ears.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by thejbomb65 (March 16, 2009 11:23 am ET)
                   

                yes and republicans have been such loud voices in reforming anything and regulating everyting, especially corporations that bankroll them.

                plugg your bullcrap talking points all you like. just because you say it doesn't make it any more true.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by fairliberal (March 16, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
                     

                  Former President Clinton: "I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was President, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 9/25/08)

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by thejbomb65 (March 17, 2009 10:06 am ET)
                       

                    well this is the result of dick morris's triangulation policy that he got clinton to use.

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by alienofwar (March 16, 2009 11:32 am ET)
                   

                Right....so can you please post a link to where Republicans tried to pass legislation to reform Fannie & Freddie???

                Report Abuse
                • Author by fairliberal (March 16, 2009 2:28 pm ET)
                     

                  Sure, here it is http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by skeptical (March 16, 2009 2:49 pm ET)
                       

                    Fairliberal,

                    Who stopped this bill from passing?

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by skeptical (March 16, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
                         

                      HI Fairliberal,

                      Because I know you won't be able to respond without telling a few lies, let me fill you in.

                      When McCain introduced that Bill, S. 190, Richard Shelby was the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, Paul Sarbanes was the Ranking Democrat (Not Dodd) as your reference tried to say) and they were 11 republicans to 9 Democrats. 

                      Also, you only need a simple majority vote to get a Bill out of Committee.

                      So, why didn't that Bill even get out of Committee?  I wonder!

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 16, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
                         

                      I know! I know:

                      "By the spring of 2005 a deal with Congress seemed within reach, Mr. Snow, the former Treasury secretary, said in an interview."

                      "Michael G. Oxley, an Ohio Republican and then-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, had produced what Mr. Snow viewed as “a pretty darned good bill,” a watered-down version of what the president sought. But at the urging of Mr. Card and the White House economics team, the president decided to hold out for a tougher bill in the Senate."

                      "Mr. Card said he feared that Mr. Snow was “more interested in the deal than the result.” When the bill passed the House, the president issued a statement opposing it, effectively killing any chance of compromise. Mr. Oxley was furious."

                      “The problem with those guys at the White House, they had all the answers and they didn’t think they had to listen to anyone, including the Treasury secretary,” Mr. Oxley said in a recent interview. “They were driving the ideological train. He was in the caboose, and they were in the engine room.”

                      Is the answer George W. Bush?

                      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1&adxnnl=1&src=tp&adxnnlx=1237230101-vEo6TkYwQlm8GKscK1dvRg

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by skeptical (March 16, 2009 3:26 pm ET)
                           

                        Good Job Fried,

                        You get a Gold Star as does T-Man for providing even more information!

                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by fairliberal (March 16, 2009 8:45 pm ET)
                         

                      What stopped this bill from even getting out of committee was unanamous opposition from all democratic members of the committee. The reps did exactly what lawmakes do when they know they do not have the support to pass a measure, they shelved it.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 16, 2009 11:45 pm ET)
                           

                        You must be kidding, FL.  Are we talking about the same bill?  I guess you think Oxley is a liar.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by thejbomb65 (March 17, 2009 10:07 am ET)
                           

                        even though in comittee the republicans had the majority and that was all that was needed to get it to a floor vote.

                        seems to me u should be hunting down your traitor neo cons

                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by steveanders_62273 (March 16, 2009 5:15 pm ET)
                       

                    Mccain was talking about the Accounting scandals @ Fannie.  If he wanted regulation so bad, why didn't he push harder?  If he had so much foresight shame on him for not bringing this crisi to light earlier and more forcefully.  What you also fail to realize is why Frank did not support the earlier bill.  It is because the republicans wanted to strip all of the equal lending provisions.  Frank supported the legislation until the repubs added language to stop the CRA.

                    Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (March 16, 2009 11:49 am ET)
               

            Then let's check our facts for 2003, shall we?

            The bill you are referring to is HR 2803. Some interesting facts about that bill:

            1. The bill was proposed in the previous session of congress, not the session you are referring to.
            2. The bill was re-introduced by Rep. Royce (R).
            3. There were no co-sponsors to the bill (boy, so much for that republicans wanted reform meme).

            How come more republicans weren't on board if they were so gung ho?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (March 16, 2009 2:06 pm ET)
                 

              Once again , you are wrong , HR 2803 was a 2007 bill and had nothing to do with what we are talking about. Do you dispute what I said about the congress, that is what you should be addressing but you like to change the subject and mislead whebn you have no idea what you are talking about.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by skeptical (March 16, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
                   

                Fairliberal,

                I assume you are just unaware of the process, but there are many HR 2803's depending on what Congress you are talking about.  Many bills have the same number, they start from scratch every two years.

                So, Snoopy is correct, HR 2803 was introduced by Rep. Royce in 2003 regarding Government Entities among other things and yes, you are correct that there was an altogether different HR 2803 introduced in 2007.

                As for the overall point, even if the Republican's majority wasn't filibuster proof, did they even try to pass any legislation?  Did they try to garner votes from the Dems?  Where is the Bill they tried to pass? 

                Any answers for those questions?

                Maybe you are saying the Republicans never introduced any legislation, because they didn't have a filibuster proof majority?  Is that it?  Because I think they did actually get some legislation passed in such a difficult situation.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 16, 2009 6:59 pm ET)
                     

                  Well said, Skeptical and Fried.  Well said.

                  "Fair"- liberal, where are you?  Hello?  What does Bill O'Reily say to this?

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (March 16, 2009 6:37 pm ET)
                   

                Check it again. as usual. you don't understand the concept of bringing bills forward from previous terms. That bill's been around awhile. It's quite hard to dispute anything you say when it is clear you don't even know what you are posting to begin with.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by skiploader1111 (March 16, 2009 1:37 pm ET)
               

            Actually Katrina happened September 2005.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (March 16, 2009 2:02 pm ET)
                 

              True but the amendment he was referring to was 2007

              Report Abuse
              • Author by skeptical (March 16, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
                   

                Please read above!

                Report Abuse
              • Author by tman418 (March 16, 2009 3:18 pm ET)
                   

                In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession,[8] which included a housing market correction, a subprime mortgage crisissoaring oil prices and a declining dollar value.[83] In February, 63,000 jobs were lost, a 5-year record.[84][85] To aid with the situation, Bush signed a $170 billion economic stimulus package which aimed to improve the economic situation by sending tax rebate checks to many Americans and providing tax breaks for struggling businesses. The Bush administration pushed for significantly increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003,[86] and after two years, the regulations passed the House but died in the Senate. Many Republican senators, as well as influential members of the Bush Administration, feared that the agency created by these regulations would merely be mimicking the private sector’s risky practices.[87][88]

                http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=2&sq=bush%20reckoning&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1237229040-7ir5gNOm7y27ZufDkpY9Tg

                "THE RECKONING

                White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire" Dec 20 2008

                "He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards."

                "Darrin West could not believe it. The president of the United States was standing in his living room."

                "It was June 17, 2002, a day Mr. West recalls as 'the highlight of my life.' Mr. Bush, in Atlanta to unveil a plan to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million, was touring Park Place South, a development of starter homes in a neighborhood once marked by blight and crime."

                "Mr. West had patrolled there as a police officer, and now he was the proud owner of a $130,000 town house, bought with an adjustable-rate mortgage and a $20,000 government loan as his down payment — just the sort of creative public-private financing Mr. Bush was promoting."

                "'Part of economic security,' Mr. Bush declared that day, 'is owning your own home.'"

                "Advocating homeownership is hardly novel; the Clinton administration did it, too. For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an 'ownership society,' in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters."

                "But for much of Mr. Bush’s tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like Mr. West."

                "So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, 'use the mighty muscle of the federal government' to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending."

                "Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs."

                "As for Mr. Bush’s banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks."

                "The administration won that fight at the Supreme Court. But Roy Cooper, North Carolina’s attorney general, said, 'They took 50 sheriffs off the beat at a time when lending was becoming the Wild West.'”

                "The president did push rules aimed at forcing lenders to more clearly explain loan terms. But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary."

                "In the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Mr. Bush’s re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The administration did not finalize the new rules until last month."

                "Brian Montgomery, the Federal Housing Administration commissioner, understood the significance. His agency insures home loans, traditionally for the same low-income minority borrowers Mr. Bush wanted to help. When he arrived in June 2005, he was shocked to find those customers had been lured away by the 'fool’s gold' of subprime loans. The Ameriquest settlement, he said, reinforced his concern that the industry was exploiting borrowers."

                "In December 2005, Mr. Montgomery drafted a memo and brought it to the White House. 'I don’t think this is what the president had in mind here,' he recalled telling Ryan Streeter, then the president’s chief housing policy analyst."

                "It was an opportunity to address the risky subprime lending practices head on. But that was never seriously discussed. More senior aides, like Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political strategist, were wary of overly regulating an industry that, Mr. Rove said in an interview, provided 'a valuable service to people who could not otherwise get credit.' While he had some concerns about the industry’s practices, he said, 'it did provide an opportunity for people, a lot of whom are still in their houses today.'”

                "The White House pursued a narrower plan offered by Mr. Montgomery that would have allowed the F.H.A. to loosen standards so it could lure back subprime borrowers by insuring similar, but safer, loans. It passed the House but died in the Senate, where Republican senators feared that the agency would merely be mimicking the private sector’s risky practices — a view Mr. Rove said he shared."

                "Today, administration officials say it is fair to ask whether Mr. Bush’s ownership push backfired. Mr. Paulson said the administration, like others before it, 'over-incented housing.'Mr. Hennessey put it this way: 'I would not say too much emphasis on expanding homeownership. I would say not enough early focus on easy lending practices.'”

                "But the back story is more complicated. To begin with, on the day Mr. Falcon issued his report, the White House tried to fire him."

                "At the time, Fannie and Freddie were allies in the president’s quest to drive up homeownership rates; Franklin D. Raines, then Fannie’s chief executive, has fond memories of visiting Mr. Bush in the Oval Office and flying aboard Air Force One to a housing event. 'They loved us,' he said."

                "So when Mr. Falcon refused to deep-six his report, Mr. Raines took his complaints to top Treasury officials and the White House. 'I’m going to do what I need to do to defend my company and my position,' Mr. Raines told Mr. Falcon."

                "Days later, as Mr. Falcon was in New York preparing to deliver a speech about his findings, his cellphone rang. It was the White House personnel office, he said, telling him he was about to be unemployed."

                "His warnings were buried in the next day’s news coverage, trumped by the White House announcement that Mr. Bush would replace Mr. Falcon, a Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton, with Mark C. Brickell, a leader in the derivatives industry that Mr. Falcon’s report had flagged."

                "Michael G. Oxley, an Ohio Republican and then-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, had produced what Mr. Snow viewed as 'a pretty darned good bill,' a watered-down version of what the president sought. But at the urging of Mr. Card and the White House economics team, the president decided to hold out for a tougher bill in the Senate."

                "Mr. Card said he feared that Mr. Snow was 'more interested in the deal than the result.' When the bill passed the House, the president issued a statement opposing it, effectively killing any chance of compromise. Mr. Oxley was furious."

                “'The problem with those guys at the White House, they had all the answers and they didn’t think they had to listen to anyone, including the Treasury secretary,' Mr. Oxley said in a recent interview. 'They were driving the ideological train. He was in the caboose, and they were in the engine room.'"

                "Typically, as home prices increase, rental costs rise proportionally. But Mr. Thomas sent charts to top White House and Treasury officials showing that the monthly cost of owning far outpaced the cost to rent. To Mr. Thomas, it was a sign that housing prices were wildly inflated and bound to plunge, a condition that could set off a foreclosure crisis as conventional and subprime borrowers with little equity found they owed more than their houses were worth."

                "It was not the Bush team’s first warning. The previous year, Mr. Lindsey, the former chief economics adviser, returned to the White House to tell his old colleagues that housing prices were headed for a crash. But housing values are hard to evaluate, and Mr. Lindsey had a reputation as a market pessimist, said Mr. Hubbard, adding, 'I thought, ‘He’s always a bear.’ ”

                "In retrospect, Mr. Hubbard said, Mr. Lindsey was 'absolutely right,' and Mr. Thomas’s charts 'should have been a signal.'

                "That fall (2007), Representative Rahm Emanuel, a leading Democrat, former investment banker and now the incoming chief of staff to President-elect Barack Obama, warned the White House it was not doing enough. He said he told Joshua B. Bolten, Mr. Bush’s chief of staff, and Mr. Paulson in a series of phone calls that the credit crisiswould get 'deep and serious' and that the only answer was big, internationally coordinated government intervention."

                "'You got to strangle this thing and suffocate it,' he recalled saying."

                Report Abuse
    • Author by progressiveright (March 16, 2009 12:00 am ET)
         

      How can a neo-con question Cheney on anything and have any credibility?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Whispers (March 16, 2009 1:03 am ET)
         

      "Fannie and Freddie" is a useful dog-whistle phrase to pick out whether the person talking about the financial crisis is an apologist for the Bush administration or not.  The True Believers think that Bush and co. did nothing wrong, and that it was all because of Fannie and Freddie - that and the fact that banks were forced to make loans to poor people.

      I think we're beyond the point of arguing whether this is a correct viewpoint, so it is interesting to trace the meme through the media. 

      One final thing: a good rule of thumb with Cheney is that everything he says is a mundane, self-serving lie.  He is more mendacious than any politician since Nixon's death.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (March 16, 2009 11:44 am ET)
           

        Agreed.  The fact that these cable shows give any credence whatsoever to anything Cheney says proves that there is no "liberal media bias".

        Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (March 16, 2009 7:49 am ET)
         

      I saw thit Tee-Shirt over the weekend.  It said:

      "Shooting an old man in the face is the least evil thing DIck Cheney has ever done."

      ROTFLMAO!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (March 16, 2009 11:51 am ET)
           

        How true.  Cheney's primary function from here on out is to act as the Bush administration's Apologist in Chief.  He will tell whatever lie necessary to justify the billions of dollars and thousands of lives he and Numbnuts wasted in Iraq.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (March 16, 2009 9:13 am ET)
         

      The Troglodytes find it necessary to blame this whole mess on Freddie and Fannie because they have these soundbites and can use them to hang it around the necks of Democrats.

      As usual, the truth is much more complicated.  Fannie and Freddie were certainly players in this monumental ClusterF***, but the real culprit is unregulated greed on Wall Street.   They built a house of cards on easy credit, and exponentially compounded the problem by selling and reselling bad loans as investment instruments, then selling insurance on whether these instruments would fail.  Essentially, they were manufacturing ways to make profit without producing anything.  Where do you think all their massive bonuses came from?

      And, the real criminal activity may be found in the rating agencies.  They were stamping these risky packages as AAA, and lowered their standards to do so.  Why?  Because they are payed by the very banks selling the bad investments.  Talk about a Ponzi scheme... When the dust settles, some of those people should probably go to jail.

      To quote former President Numbnuts, "Wall Street got drunk."  Their greed and recklessness transformed a housing bubble into a Flaming Hindenburg.  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by alienofwar (March 16, 2009 11:35 am ET)
           

        Yea, but saying "Franks, Fannie and Freddie are to blame" is so much easier then repeating everything you say.

        Remember, if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, Republicans won't comprehend.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by theclocktowersniper8151 (March 16, 2009 10:53 pm ET)
           

        Care to assign any culpability to Frank and Dodd?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (March 17, 2009 9:04 am ET)
             

          No.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Tbone Slickens (March 17, 2009 1:18 pm ET)
               

            Why not?  Dodd received more campaign money from AIG than any other politicain.  Barry O gave AIG's CEO cover during his "outrage" at the release of the retention bonuses non-scandal, which the Dems knew about already.  For at least a year.  Little Timmy decided to time it (the release) for the media at this time.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (March 16, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
         
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpb7z_PjbAs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAH-o7oEiyY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pg8bT6A0do
      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.