barney frank

We are about to see a political windfall occur that would turn the head of Tammany Hall's George Washington Plunkitt.

Consider this little feature of the "cap and trade" bill..

 .. the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's mouth is watering at the prospect of a huge new derivatives market.

Yep, the big financial winner from Waxman-Markey is not likely to be solar energy entrepeneurs; it is likely to be derivatives traders gaming the emissions trading markets.

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange is ready to set up its own "Gas House Gang" CME's Chairman, Terrence Duffy, recently told a House committee his firm is all ready to go to implement the process. 

 This is going to be massive if implemented. I mean, like trillions of dollars massive. And this means mind- boggling commissions and bonuses for traders, and huge profits for the CME itself. Remember how much money Enron used to make doing this sort of stuff? 

Now,hmmm, who's on the Board of Directors of the CME? 

Jackie Clegg Dodd, Chris Dodd's wife. (there's no conflict of interest , here , as per hubby)..maybe he didn't read this.

And she is well compensated  for a post where she is thinly qualified.

So if Cap and Trade passes Jackie Clegg Dodd's corporation stands to make a windfall?

(they also stand to make a windfall from OTC derivative regulation underway)

And presumably the board members will share in the added revenue.

And it gets better. Guess who's drafting the yet unfinished parts of the Waxman-Markey bill governing derivative regulations?

Chris Dodd's old buddy Barney Frank

So how this is going to work is that ordinary electric customers will see their rates "skyrocket"; some well connected businesses have already gotten exemptions; and the whole deal will be manipulated by commodity speculators.  Who made sure to put the spouse of the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee on their Board of Directors.

It seems like what "Hope and Change" really means is that the political insiders can add another decimal point to the "honest graft" they were accustomed to receiving. Meanwhile "Connecticut's middle class" will get hosed.  (They'll need to use credit cards to pay their CL&P bill, Chris)

Really, this is going to make the Countrywide mortgage and the Irish cottage look like chump change as far as the potential windfall to the Dodd family.   And  no one seems to connect the dots. Amazing.

by Lance Thompson

Over the weekend, the Obama administration has changed the National Economic Threat Level Red (describe economy as a crisis bordering on a catastrophe) to Green “the economy is sound–what, me worry?”  This, despite the fact that during the presidential campaign, Obama ridiculed opponent John McCain for making the same confident statement about America’s finances, and that was long before everyone’s 401K got the Obama meltdown discount.  But, even though our houses and retirement funds are worth less, our jobs are gone or disappearing, and the federal government continues to spend money faster than they can print it, I’m willing to take Obama at his word that the economy is not a crisis.

Now, to address this troubled economy, which is fundamentally strong and not in a crisis, Obama has spent all the money we have and quite a bit of money that doesn’t exist.  He spent this money as directed by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, on all manner of liberal wish-list projects and earmarks, under the guise of “emergency stimulus.”  Okay, let’s assume that all that deficit spending will eventually revive the economy at some point in our grandchildren’s future.

The rest of the world does not stand still, and crises arise on unpredictable and inconvenient schedules all their own.  It is not certain what the next crisis will be, but it is undeniable that there will be one.

In international relations, where state gifts from this administration range from 25 bargain bin DVD’s to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to Hillary Clinton’s presentation of a panic button to the Russian government, events are unpredictable.  Pakistan may collapse and the nation’s eighty-odd nukes would be in the hands of–well, who knows?  China, with a resurgent space program, has harassed our ships on the high seas and tested anti-satellite weapons.  The Chinese know that there is unlikely to be another American administration less likely to interfere in an invasion of Taiwan.  Russia has ridiculed our groveling offer to cancel missile defense in Eastern Europe in exchange for their cessation of military and nuclear aid to Iran.  And Iran’s dual space- and nuclear programs are transparently complementary as foundations for nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.  All of these, and many more, are possible international crises.

Naturally, the crisis may be of another kind.  Hurricane season is coming up.  Has anyone noticed a dearth of beachfront housing, commercial property or industry?  We are just as vulnerable to another Katrina as ever.  Volcanoes are restive in Alaska and Yellowstone has been rumbling of late.  California hasn’t had a big quake in over a decade–they’re seismically due, as is the New Madrid fault in the Mississippi Valley which breaks loose at much longer intervals.  We’ve had some near-misses from asteroids lately, the latest of which came as something of an astronomical surprise.  Don’t forget regular disasters like blizzards in the northeast, droughts in the Southwest, floods all over the flatlands.  And judging from the impeccable science that backs up the global warming alarmists, another ice age must be imminent.

Crises come in all varieties.  We could have a viral pandemic that would overtax our health care system.  The drug wars of Mexico, which really are on the scale of an actual war, could explode across the border at any moment.  More terrorist strikes are undeniably being planned.  Many have been prevented or interdicted over the last eight years by a vigilance which has been systematically relaxed since Obama took office.  And, of course, a real financial crisis could occur at any time–the FDIC could fail, homeowners could stop paying their mortgages to qualify for mortgage assistance, mass layoffs could follow tax hikes on businesses and corporations, China and Japan could call in their debts or even stop raising the limits on our credit cards.

I raise these possibilities not merely to increase readers’ gray hair quotients, but because they all have one common trait.  The responses or solutions to each of these crises will be very expensive.  Whether it’s sending a military force to war in the Western Pacific, rebuilding a devastated city or region, or treating millions of stricken Americans, the federal government will be called upon to act quickly, and spend vastly.

But the financial crisis, which has now been disavowed by the administration and Democrats in Congress who used it to pass their profligate spending bills, has already spent all the money.  If what they say is true (try not to snicker at that), then the economy is sound, there is no crises, and we spent a couple of trillion dollars because we panicked.

Much like the response to the boy who cried wolf, the vast economic resources of the nation were called out, record-breaking debt was incurred, and private corporations were taken over by government agencies, all to meet a false alarm.  After two months of Obama, the coffers are empty and the debt is overwhelming.  This administration has made certain that we literally can’t afford another crisis.

Which makes one wonder what we will do when one occurs.

Dear Senators Dodd and Schumer and Congressman Frank,

First things first, let me congratulate you for reaching a level of hypocritical grandstanding I thought impossible even for the United States' Congress.

Congressman Frank, you blocked oversight at Fannie and Freddie while you were dating a high ranking Fannie official.

Senator Dodd, you took a bribe from Angelo Mozillo to filibuster George W. Bush's attempts to reign in criminal excesses at Fannie and Freddie.

Senator Schumer, the 100% tax rate you propose on Wall Street bonuses violates the ex post facto clause in the United States Constitution.  Not that you care when you're up for re-election this cycle....

Furthermore, all three of you were crucial players in the decision to bailout Wall Street.  While you may personally disagree with some of the decisions those firms have made, the fact remains you had an oppotunity to let said firms fail six months ago.  Instead of letting Wall Street fail; you failed.

Once you decided to bail these firms out, you implicitly accepted responsibility for any unpopular business decisions said firms made.

Against that backdrop, I find your grandstanding over the compensation paid by the American International Group (AIG) utterly nauseating.  Said compensation, while perhaps unwise from a narrowly defined business perspective, is standard practice in the financial services industry.  Gentlemen, if you didn't want AIG engaging in standard business practices; THEN YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BAILED THEM OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

Don't get me wrong: AIG screwed up and THEY SHOULD FAIL as a result (the fact that their screw up is a direct result of Elliot Spitzer's bullying is a topic for another day).  That said, Gentlemen, you are standing in the way of AIG's creative destruction.  Until you are willing to let AIG fail, your whines about executive compensation ring hollow.

Sincerely,

Adam Cahn

Austin, TX

In recent days we've had a lot of hand wringing about how Republicans "need to listen to the Obama team" and "need to respond to their criticism".   We've even seen some editors here adopt that sort of stance.

Well, folks, not so long ago I suggested the Democrats do something which was , admittedly, an effort to gain a Republican "victory"; but also intended in good conscience to improve the nation's fortunes irregardless of the party holding control of Washington, DC. 

On September 23, 2008 I posted the following advice.

Some prominent Democrats must demonstrate a level of responsibility for this disaster before Republicans allow themselves to be roped into looking like die hard Dubya loyalists.

The quid: The chairman of the Senate and House Banking Committees---Chris Dodd and Barney Frank--must relinquish their chairmanships as a condition for Republican yes votes on the bailouts.    

And there's a completely nonpartisan reason for demanding this. In 2009 we will have a new President and a new Secretary of the Treasury. The executive branch will have fresh blood who did not create this debacle (perhaps they ignored it, but...whatever) 

The people who are hopelessly compromised by their roles in Congress must step aside as well to demonstrate to America that people on Capitol Hill get the same message 

Everyone---both parties---both branches of government---is going out the door who "managed" the banking system.

For equity's sake, we can have the ranking Republicans on each committee quit too.

America needs a fresh set of folks who will have the responsiblity for getting ourselves out of this mess. It can;t be the same people who created the mess. They now have zero credibility.

And America deserves both parties accepting a share of the blame for what went wrong.

Are the egos of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank more important than our economy's future?

As Spike Lee said, Do the Right Thing

Well, we know that the Democrats did not replace their Banking Committee chairmen and decided the same people who watched the ship sink would have some clue how to use a bailing bucket.

 At the point when I posted that the Dow was trading around 11,000. It is poised to open below 7,000 today and few think we've seen the hard bottom quite yet.    The Democratic Party had an opportunity to bring in a fresh legislative team to deal with this problem and we had an obligation to the public to force this to happen. The results are rather obvious. I won't belabor the deficiencies in Obama and Geithner's decisions to date; but if there was an opportunity to change market confidence; this opportunity was lost. And replacing the failed Congressional "leaders" would have played a huge role.  

There is no confidence in the economy at present; and the erratic behavior of Dodd and Frank have made matters worse. And will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Sure, the Democrats "won"   . But once in a awhile your opponents might be offering ideas that would work to your benefit.  I think I did.   But, I'd like to have an economy more than partisan pride. 

by  Lance Thompson

This nation has enemies of all kinds.  But imagine a generic enemy of the United States–any state, agency, organization or individual who would benefit from this country’s failure.  Then imagine what such an enemy would want for the United States.

The enemy would want our borders to be porous so that illegal entry into this country would be comparatively easy.  Further, the enemy would want the consequent flood of illegal aliens to drain our welfare, education and health systems; increase crime rates, clog the justice system and fill our prisons to overflowing; and to create a separate nation within our nation that has its own language, customs and identity separate from that of American citizens. Finally, he would want this illegal group to gain the rights of citizens and cast their votes against the legitimate interests of this country.

The enemy would want to subvert the very democracy that our nation is the symbol and champion of.  He would hope that our electoral process could be invalidated by disenfranchisement, fraud and corruption.  He would hope that Americans would lose faith in the democratic system, and, in the face of the repeated thwarting of popular will, to cease participation in the franchise entirely.

The enemy would like to see the checks and balances of the American government sabotaged.  He would like to see our Congress crafting laws in secret and concealing their excesses from scrutiny.  He would like to see the president fill his administration with officers tainted by unlawful acts and compromised by unsavory histories.  He would like to see our judicial branch filled with judges who legislate from the bench and who thwart the will of the people with arbitrary decrees.  He would additionally wish that oversight of these branches of government would be reduced or eliminated so their abuses could continue without interference. The enemy would know that this, too, would destroy the faith of Americans in their government and leaders.

The enemy would like to see this nation’s defenses dismantled.  He would like to see more and more laws that protect those who would destroy this country, and greater restrictions on those who defend it.  He would like to see this nation abandon its allies, withdraw from its strategic positions, and unilaterally surrender the initiative in the high ground of space to our foes.

The enemy would like to see the powerful market economy of this nation destroyed.

He would like to see the value of our stocks, retirement accounts and real estate tumble.  He would like our financial institutions to collapse.  He would like the mighty economic engine that is America hobbled by burdensome regulations and taxes, pseudo-scientific environmental restrictions, and adversarial government policy.  He would like to see private industry and public employers consumed by the cancer of ever more powerful unions.  And he would want to so increase the debt of the United States with irresponsible spending, out-of-control entitlements and incomprehensible monetary policy that our country would lose its place as the world’s most economically powerful nation.

All of these conditions are being created by the Democrats in the White House and Congress.  Democrats are the champions of illegal immigration.  Barack Obama’s campaign, as well as that of Al Franken and other Democrats, benefited from the aid of ACORN, a vote-manufacturing community group that was under criminal investigation in five states during the presidential campaign, and is now slated to get a multi-million dollar chunk of the stimulus bill.

The stimulus bill itself was crafted in secret, defended by lies, and rushed through the process without being shown to many Democrats, let alone any Republicans.  As Byron York recently pointed out, it contains provisions for a board that can terminate investigations by inspectors general into the executive branch.  And in almost a trillion dollars of new spending, the only significant cutbacks in the bill were in the areas of defense appropriations.

Liberal judges have released terrorists, murderers and child molesters and reversed the democratic will of the people by striking down initiatives from prohibitions on gay marriage to calls for English only ballots.  The new administration has appointed a terrorist sympathizer as attorney general, sprinkled tax evaders throughout the cabinet, and created the “culture of corruption” which was a phrase the Democrats themselves invented, and have now perfected.  Finally, the financial meltdown was caused by Democrats coercing banks to offer loans to those unable to repay them and Democrats blocking oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Moderates on both sides are eager to grant the opposition the benefit of the doubt, and concede that those across the aisle have the best interests of the country at heart, even if their methods differ.  But when one party’s policies consistently support and achieve the aims of the enemy, then intentions are immaterial.  Only the results matter, and in the issues above, where Democrats have had their way, the results are always detrimental to the interests of the United States.

If we cannot use the term “enemy” for the leaders whose policies serve the needs and interests of the enemy, then perhaps we need a new term.  “Unenlightened co-conspirator” has a nice ring.  “New double-Dealer” has a retro flair.  We could save “disloyal opposition” for a more favorable balance in Congress.

But maybe we already have a term for politicians who abuse our system of government to deceive its citizens, drain its treasury, strip its defenses and undermine its foundations.  It starts with a “D’ and ends in “rat.”

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2009/2/24/the-enemys-agenda.html

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked with premeditated precision, carried out by a handful of illegal alien terrorists.  That’s “illegal alien” terrorists.

The immediate, most obvious results were the deaths of over 2,700 human beings and the wholesale destruction of public, private and U.S. government property.  Every business was affected, particularly the airlines.  The tally of job losses and layoffs reached 380,000.  Our economic activities in general were disrupted, and there was the passing away of the sacred sense of safety and security.

That and more was caused by those illegal alien terrorists within a period of only three hours on that sunny morning in New York City, across the Potomac River from our nation’s capital, and in a Pennsylvania meadow.  We bring this up for two reasons: first, there has been a concerted effort on the part of liberals to label discussions about illegal immigration as racist and lacking compassion.  And second, the cost to American taxpayers of turning a blind eye to the corruption of our immigration laws is one of the major components of our failing economy.

The monetary calculation of losses after 9/11, including insurance and an immediate jump in military spending, exceeded $180 billion.  Not a small sum, but not enormous either, when compared to recent TARP handouts and the current stimulus package that’s bucking $1 trillion.  Nonetheless, the emotional damage that was suffered will never mend nor can its gravity ever be calculated in terms of dollars and cents.

$180 billion pales in comparison to the mounting costs Americans are presently being bled white to accept in order to mend an economy brought literally to its knees by financial greed and Congressional ineptitude.

The Pelosi-Reid stimulus package does not include any measure to stem the ever-increasing costs to the American taxpayer for illegal immigration. And illegals continue to receive free benefits no matter which way the stock markets fluctuate.

Compounding this fiasco is the abject refusal by members on both sides of the aisle to accept the fact—which is based on undeniable hard evidence—that illegal immigrants remain this country’s singular, most expensive financial problem, as well as a high security threat.  And they aren’t even included in the Democrats’ stimulus package.  However, what is contained, are measures that will compound the problem exponentially.  No amount of political correctness will make this fiscal and security problem go away.  It has been shoved to and kept on the Congressional back burner for the last year during the course of the presidential campaign, principally because both candidates were in favor of amnesty.  But the problem will continue to rear its ugly head.  Gang warfare and the Mexican drug cartels are making our point through the killing of innocent Americans inside the U.S., and by a border war rife with beheadings of military and police.  Are Mexican beheadings less ghastly than Islamic beheadings?

John McCain learned quickly, and the hard way, throughout his campaigning when he attempted to sell his desire to grant amnesty and citizenship to illegals. As stated in the Washington Post article of February 4, 2008:

“No issue has been more critical for McCain to address, and finesse, than his stance on immigration reform. The bill that he co-authored with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), which included a proposal to grant illegal immigrants citizenship after they paid a fine and met several other conditions, sparked an outrage among Republicans that he had never seen coming, aides said. His poll numbers plummeted. Critics dubbed him Amnesty John.”

Whenever he mentioned amnesty and/or citizenship for illegals, McCain’s enthusiastic supporters would be struck mute, as though the senator had just passed gas. His unbending attitude might have ultimately been the chief reason he failed to succeed to the White House — causing doubters to stay home rather than go to the polls and vote.

Last week we heard first-hand the hubris that has accompanied Obama into the White House.  His mandate apparently includes appointing ultra pro amnesty (and labor) candidate Hilda Solis.  In California, she voted “No” on building a fence along the Mexican border; she voted “No” on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment; she voted “Yes” on extending Immigrant Residency rules.

California is almost bankrupt, and as California goes, so goes the nation.  As Labor Secretary (assuming she’s given a pass on her 16-years, non-taxpaying husband), Hilda Solis will no doubt do her best to dig us a deeper illegal immigration hole than we are in now.

Speaking of deep holes: A new, very disturbing matter has arisen in the just-passed stimulus bill — the issue of health provisions.  As stealthily as they slipped Tom Daschle’s ideas about healthcare into the stimulus package, illegals with ITINS (Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers) are part and parcel of any added provisions.  How?  Because hospitals participating in Medicare are already forced to provide emergency care to patients regardless of their ability to pay or their immigration status — and the hospitals are reimbursed by the Federal government.

As early as 2001, Senator Charles Schumer (and Buffalo Mayor Anthony Masiello) joined forces with CitiMortgage and Fannie Mae to offer hundreds of mortgages to low- and moderate-income, minority, new immigrant, and other underserved households in Erie and Niagara Counties.  Wrap your brain around the concept of just two counties multiplied across the U.S. and you will have a clearer picture of how we got to where we are today.

Which brings us to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. They, amongst others in the House and Senate, had a heavy hand in creating and exacerbating the mortgage meltdown.  Illegal immigrants with no credit history were able to qualify for one (and sometimes multiple) mortgages on homes then valued at $500K plus. Yet, the Franks and Dodds of Capitol Hill continue to operate free of criticism or censure by their party.  Barney Frank seems to share the same delusions as “Octomom” when it comes to gaming the system.

Pseudo Republican Sen. Arlen Spector explained that he “was supporting the stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.”  If Spector would give as much gravitas to the costs of not taking action on illegal immigration as he does to this half-baked stimulus package, he might get reelected.  It seems more likely he wants to end his tenure on a positive note – with Obama’s praise, gratitude and perhaps even a fist bump.

Osama bin Ladin wanted to bring down the U.S. economy on 9/11.  Now he just has to sit back and wait for us implode, because with Barack Hussein Obama now at the helm, this implosion may come regardless of our extreme precautions and Capitol Hill’s “stimulating” measures.

I really don't like to be a Johnny-one-note on Chris Dodd, but my word, he is a gift that just keeps on giving

Evidentlly he and his partner in economic incompetence, Barney Frank, were peeved at a recent USA Today editorial which properly called the Democrats to task for not reining in the GSE's while there was time to avoid the meltdown. And of course, the claim was it was all those clueless, free market Republicans that caused the mess.  So this response.

  First, it will be hard to justify that Democratic "members supported virtually any program that provided credit to low-income purchasers and inner cities, regardless of whether this lending was prudent," when in fact we have been trying to pass a national anti-predatory lending legislation for years. But we were thwarted by a deregulation-loving Republican Congress that wanted to allow the "free" market to work its magic.

Of course , trying to enact laws against "predatory lending" at the same time you make the Community Reinvestment Act more stringent makes as much sense as driving by trying to floor the accelerator with the parking brake on, but, I digress.

Readers of this blog will know what Dodd is saying is objectively, unquestionably false.

Here's my June 18, 2008 post

  http://www.thenextright.com/ironman/chris-dodds-countrywide-bridge-sale-continues

Chris Dodd says:

"I've been pretty tough on Countrywide," he said, referring to hearings he has held as Senate banking committee chairman on the nation's mortgage crisis."

Reality Check:

Hearings his Committee held on Mozilo's stock deals:?

Hearings his Committee held on the Bank of America deal?

Last year a Countrywide executive was summoned to a hearing on subprime lending: Dodd's response

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and the chairman of the banking committee, said he did not know if new legislation was necessary, saying regulators could addresses most excesses under existing laws.  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01EEDE1530F930A15750C0A9619C8B63

In 2009 Dodd tells USA Today the Republicans prevented legislation to limit excessive subprime lending.

In 2007 Dodd tells the NY Times he doesn't think new legislation to limit excessive subprime lending is necessary.

At tha time he is, of course, is on the "Friends of Angelo" list at the largest subprime lender, Countrywide Mortgage.

And before the mortgage meltdown, Dodd certainly was quite friendly with all those terrible "free market" types and not at all concerned about deregulation.

 Chris Dodd was "the Bankers' Candidate" for President  Each of these big-money interests applauds his light-handed approach to financial regulation and considers him a reliable friend "

One reason it helps to tell the truth is given enough time, it's hard to keep all your lies straight.

If you want to take action, well grassroots groups are forming in CT to start getting a more credible replacement for the Senator from Countrywide 

Barney Frank thinks that companies are people too:

"No, we're not propping up companies," Frank insists. "That's your mistake. We're propping up individuals. The world doesn't consist of companies. The world are people. The country is people. And yes, it is possible to argue that the government..."

So next time we try to cut corporate taxes to help our competitiveness, don't let him tell you that you are just trying to help companies.

Reports indicate that there is less confidence that the auto indusrty bailout will be passed. Many Republicans and some Democrats question whether the bailout bill will use taxpayer's dollars effectively. The Bloomberg article Democrats Back Off Prediction of Automaker Bailout Approval describes the latest version of the bill.

The Democratic proposal would let the president appoint a so-called car czar to oversee industry restructuring, and give taxpayers stock warrants equal to 20 percent of the loans. It would prohibit the automakers from paying dividends and owning or leasing corporate jets, and pay and bonuses would be limited.

This, however, does not address the inherent problems with these businesses. Preventing the "paying dividends and owning or leasing corporate jets, and pay and bonuses" addresses none of the major problems. A limit on excesses misses the basic fact that these are failed companies, who can't garner loans from anyone other than Congress. The only check or change that this bill implements is 'a car czar'; the powers of which Chairman Barney Frank tried to explain...

‘Head-Knocking’

Frank told reporters today the bill would give the car czar “a great deal of head-knocking ability” with “a lot of the powers that you would get in bankruptcy.”

The official would have the power to veto participating automakers’ plans to invest abroad, Frank said. Lawmakers want to ensure the companies don’t “take American taxpayer dollars and expand in other countries rather than here, or shut down a plant in America while expanding a plant elsewhere,” he said.

Because Bush and President-elect Barack Obama are unlikely to agree on a czar, Obama will likely replace Bush’s pick as soon as he takes office, Frank said. The Bush administration has said the official should come from the Commerce Department.

So this 'car czar' a likely member of the Commerce Department will be apparently appointed by President Bush then replaced by the future President Obama, and he shall be granted 'head knocking abilities'.

Chairman Frank went on to state that the auto industry will likely need to be granted more money in the future, something Speaker Pelosi has also stated. This does not instill confidence that this bailout will be anything but a waste of money.

A few basic questions for lawmakers...

How will this money fix the failed business policies of the auto industry?

How many bailouts and/or how much money will be paid to the automakers total?

What's wrong with bankruptcy?

What are the requirements for being granted a government bailout?

This is still not an rational soution. Ask your representatives not to support this bailout bill, and make them at least answer the basic question, 'how will this money fix the problems that the auto industry faces?'

Contact Your Senator

Contact Your Congressman

Continued Problems with the Automaker Bailout

The racebaiting has turned from tragedy to farce.  Barney Frank...

Rep. Barney Frank said Monday that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated. [...] "They get to take things out on poor people," Frank said at a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston. "Let's be honest: The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either, from their standpoint. This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a kind of anger in people."

 I hardly know where to begin.

• Yes, "subprime mortgage crisis" is obviously just code for "minorities".
• Yes, it's obviously inappropriate to suggest that extending mortgages to people who can't afford them is somehow responsible for this financial crisis of people unable to afford their mortgages.
• No, it's not at all ridiculous for Rep. Barney Frank to say these things just weeks after he had praised Bernanke's new rules that restricted mortgages that were "inappropriate" for unqualified borrowers.
• No, it's not at all hypocritical for Barney Frank to say it's racist to point out the problems with loans made to poor/underqualified people just weeks after he had said we need regulation that says "Do not lend money to people who can't pay it back."
• No, it's not at all contradictory for Barney Frank to say "They get to take things out on poor people" just weeks after he had said "we have made a mistake in this society" by "push[ing] and encourag[ing] people into home ownership - people who, in some cases, weren't ready for it."

I keep thinking these people are going to get called out on this obvious, laughable crap, but they keep saying it and - with a few noteworthy exceptions that do "fact check their ass" about the mortgage crisis - the media keeps transcribing it.