Posted by
Tomás Aquinas on Thursday, September 25, 2008 7:00:00 PM
Ken Salazar, in the Pueblo Chieftain today:
"Where
was Hank Paulson for the past year when middle-America has been going
through a home foreclosure crisis? Where was President Bush?" Ken
Salazar asked Wednesday. "Back then, they were saying all the economy's
fundamentals were strong. Were they distorting the reality for the
public or were they just wrong? Now they want more money than we've
spent on the entire war in Iraq," the senator said.
The
past year? Ken, you should be ashamed of yourself. Do you really think
your constituents are that stupid? You say they are 'angry'? You have
no idea...
The economy, the American worker, the spirit of
America, has been and remains strong, Senator. Why don't you go take a
read of Franklin D. Roosevelt's first inaugural address and refresh
your view of this country. You obviously need it.
As for that inane 'the past year' comment...let me do a little refreshing for you:
On September 30, 1999 - during the Clinton administration - this article appeared in the New York Times:
Fannie
Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under
increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage
loans among low and moderate income people . . . ''Fannie Mae has
expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by
reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie
Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many
borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has
required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher
mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.'' Fannie
Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any
difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized
corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a
government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in
the 1980's. ''From the
perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift
industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow
at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government
will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed
out the thrift industry.'' . . .
and then this pearl from the May 25, 2001 edition of the New York Times:
Traditional
power centers in Washington, like organized labor and the
government-sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), will now
have important political allies back in positions of leadership in the
Senate after coming under heavy assault by the Republicans.
The
NYT is referring to the Democrats in the Senate. Those are the
'important political allies'. It refers to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
'coming under heavy assault by the Republicans'? Why? For the sloppy,
shoddy way they were doing business, a sloppy, shoddy way of doing
business that 'important political allies', the Democrats, covered and
protected.
And that, Senator, is why we are in the mess we are in today.
Now,
Senator, if you will examine postings here of the last week or ten
days, you will find a number of references that show that the Bush
administration has tried on several occasions to get something done
about what is described above. But your party, the Democrats, Barney
Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama...you, Senator...have all been part and
parcel to blocking any of that. Just like it says in the May 25, 2001
edition of the New York Times. 'Last week' my Aunt Mae's Fannie.
I
don't know if you are just that arrogant, Senator, or that stupid, or
both, to make a comment like that today and then expect it to be
swallowed without question.
There is more, Senator. This one is from the LA Times, back in May of 1999:
Under
Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into
enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute
meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their
low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear
message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending
laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to
blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate. Lenders
also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new
initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered
corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance
system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and
bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend
more. In 1992, Congress
mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages
for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that
requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and
creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive
advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and
opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these
markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with
very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an
unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks
willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.
That's
the Clinton administration, Senator, the Democrats - you and yours -
mandating those loans to poorly qualified and otherwise (common
sense-wise) unqualified buyers. The past year? Get real, Senator. If
you are going to stand there and tell me how you're going to screw me,
at least do without lying through your teeth. Senator, you are either a
shameless liar or the dumbest buffoon to ever sit a Senate seat. Which
is it?
While you're giving that question some thought, why don't
you and Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and Barack Obama all take a
vacation on my dime in some sweet little Caribbean resort? You've
earned it. Screwing We the People as badly as you have and then
managing to come out of it smelling like a rose must be exhausting.
While you are at it, take James Johnson and Franklin Raines with you.
The taxpayers are 'angry'? The citizens are 'angry'? The voters are 'angry'? You don't know the half of it.