
Nearly two years after the Wall Street meltdown drove the U.S. economy to the brink of collapse, and forced the U.S. government to prop up major financial institutions with hundreds of billions of dollars, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now claims that the Bush Administration prohibited its own top officials who were handling the emerging crisis from briefing Congress until a complete financial collapse was only hours away.
In little-noticed statements to reporters over the last few weeks, Pelosi has alleged that the Bush administration knew well in advance of its intervention that the financial crisis would hit, and that Congress would need to authorize a historic and unpopular bailout - but that top officials, including then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, told her that they had been barred from briefing Congress about true extent of the crisis.
If accurate, the allegation could constitute a major indictment of the Bush administration, which may have worsened the crisis and resulting economic fallout by delaying the call for congressional action. Pelosi says the admissions from Bush administration officials that they had kept Congress in the dark came in private conversations between her and those officials in person and by phone. None of the other parties to those conversations would comment for this story. Nor is it clear if the Administration's alleged decision not to brief Congress earlier was a calculated strategy to avoid spooking the already shaky financial markets thus hastening the crisis or, as Pelosi suggests, a political calculation in advance of the 2008 presidential elections, or a combination of the two.
During her weekly press conference on April 15, a reporter asked Pelosi a seemingly innocuous question about taxes. Pelosi prefaced her response with a fairly standard litany: explaining the dire state of the U.S. economy inherited by President Obama and setting the blame at the foot of the Bush administration. But she also added this: "When [then-Senator Obama] accepted the nomination in Colorado, the [Bush] Administration had kept from the public the idea that, in a matter of weeks, the financial community would be in crisis, and we would need to pass the TARP legislation."
Much has been written about the days, weeks, and months leading up to the financial crisis, which culminated with Lehman Brothers declaring bankruptcy on September 14, 2008. We know, for instance, that Treasury officials in the Bush administration had conceived of a contingency plan along the lines of the TARP bailout months before they actually called for one: a "break the glass" Bank Recapitalization Plan. And it was no secret to anybody paying attention that the financial system had suffered major shocks throughout 2008. But Pelosi appeared to be saying that Paulson and others knew that the glass would have to be broken weeks before they begged her and other congressional leaders to step in.
To clarify, I followed up with her after that press conference.
Pelosi affirmed my interpretation of what she'd said.
She recounted to me the events of September 18, 2008 - some two weeks, she reminded me, after Barack Obama accepted the Democratic Presidential nomination in Denver. Lehman Brothers had just filed for bankruptcy four days earlier and the Federal Reserve had authorized the New York Fed to lend up to $85 billion to insurance giant AIG. That afternoon, she called Paulson to ask for a full briefing the next morning.
"They said, 'That will be too late. That will be too late. Tomorrow morning, 9 o'clock will be too late,'" Pelosi recalled.
In a meeting that evening with Congressional leaders and staff, Paulson, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and others offered a dire assessment, and made an appeal for intervention that ultimately resulted in TARP. Bernanke and Paulson beseeched the legislators to act quickly, warning that, the entire U.S. economy might collapse in days without rapid intervention. But Pelosi had a question. "I asked them, and said, 'Why am I calling you - why didn't you call me?," Pelosi said.
In our initial conversation, that's where Pelosi stopped: "You go ask them what their response was to that question."
I reached out to Paulson multiple times over the last two weeks, but received no response*. Phil Swagel, who served as assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury department during the crisis, didn't have an answer to the question Pelosi says she asked. But he insisted that the department made the call on TARP based on the shocks that hit Wall Street that week of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and no earlier. "From my perspective, the TARP proposal was put forward as a result of the events of the week of September 14, notably the stresses in money markets (money market mutual funds and commercial paper)," Swagel told me via email.
Unable to reach Paulson, I circled back to Pelosi last week. This time she agreed to elaborate: "Here's what they said. They said, 'We were not allowed to tell Congress, but since you called, we're going to answer your questions.'"
Pelosi offered no hints as to why the Bush administration would prohibit its top lieutenants from speaking up about the need for federal intervention. Among their concerns might have been sowing panic that would have added further strains to financial markets already close to the breaking point. But Pelosi's comments suggest, though she declines to go farther, that election year politics played into the equation.
In his book, On The Brink, Paulson recounts the events of September 18th and the days leading up to TARP. Paulson notes that, hours prior to the meeting, Pelosi sought to include fiscal stimulus in any recapitalization plan, and that during the meeting, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank pushed to include pay restrictions for participating executives, but that he resisted both ideas.
Paulson acknowledges that Pelosi did indeed place the phone call that resulted in the briefing that evening.
"On my way to the White House, Nancy Pelosi called to ask about the market. She had wanted me to come up the following morn with Ben [Bernanke] to brief the Democratic leadership. I related just how bad things were and told her we would have to go to the Hill that night to ask for emergency powers. She asked why it couldn't wait until the morning, and I replied it might be too late by then.
He does not, however, explain why the administration didn't approach Congress unprompted.
A spokesman for former President George W. Bush had no comment on this story.
I asked Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd last week about Pelosi's charges and he said this is the first time he's heard such an allegation raised. But he seemed mostly unsurprised. "I said to Hank Paulson, 'Be Hank Paulson.'" Dodd told me. "If you listen to the White House, you're going to mess this up."
Two days after the September 18 meeting, the Treasury Department presented what came to be known as TARP to Congress. The original, three-page draft, would have ceded the Bush administration extraordinary authority to purchase assets from the private sector, barring oversight or judicial review. Congressional principals agreed to push ahead with a bailout, but refused to grant the executive branch all of the powers they were seeking. On September 29, House Republicans blocked the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, pushing markets over a cliff and sending shudders through the White House and Wall Street. Days before, Paulson famously dropped to one knee and begged Pelosi to round up enough Democrats to pass the bill. But the Republicans ultimately delivered the votes they promised and TARP passed on round two, and was signed into law on October 3.
* Late update: Paulson spokeswoman Michele Davis emails to say "no one at Treasury ever felt in any way constrained by the White House from communicating with the Congress."
tiowally
May 3, 2010 2:41 PM
Shrub wouldn't let people tell the truth about impending global economic collapse? As Gomer Pyle said so succinctly, "Surprise. Surprise. Surprise."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rynato
May 3, 2010 3:05 PM in reply to tiowally
If you knew in advance of everyone else that there was going to be something as momentous as a big bailout of Wall Street, you could profit quite handsomely from that knowledge.
Just saying... follow the money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Harry Truman
May 3, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to rynato
If Pelosi knew on September 18, 2008 that the White House was holding out on her, why is she only whispering about it now? I fault her for not yelling about this on September 19, 2008.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
May 3, 2010 4:38 PM in reply to Harry Truman
I wonder what would have happened had she done that? Would everyone have rolled over on Bush or would Pelosi have been accused of playing politics with the worst financial crisis in the last 50 years? Would Bush have been blamed for the subsequent melt down or would it have been blamed on Pelosi for using fear to gain politcally.
I would have preffered knowing this back in 08 but given the situation at the time and the power that Bush and Dick Cheney still had I can understand why Nancy didn't bring it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mJJ
May 4, 2010 1:39 AM in reply to henk
Why was it up to Pelosi to make that statement when she heard the info from a Bush cabinet officer and did not know if it was the real scoop without exposing the person who told her. Sounds like an excuse and not a reason you are trying to give to G. W. Bush to absolve him of his sad respnse the the financial mess in our country. The meltdown was on his watch and he owed it to the nation to report the mess fully and ACURATELY to Congress. To blame Pelosi for something she had nothing to do with is just silly. Obviously our party standard bearer in the Oval Office then chose to dodge any attempt on the part of Congress to get the facts. But nice try to attempt to cover for Bush cause he did need all the cover he could get. But alas, no amount of cover can cover up the rality of the total meltdown of our economy on HIS watch. So he managed to make sure we Republicans had to take a resounding whipping last election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
May 3, 2010 4:38 PM in reply to Harry Truman
Right. Because with the whole world's economy teetering just one more freakout or political misstep away from a second Great Depression and 30% unemployment, that was totally what she should have been focusing on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Harry Truman
May 3, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
What I remember at the time was a great lack of trust of everyone. Paulson was down on his knees to Pelosi— he needed her. Once again, this would have been a good thing to know. As to what others would have said: well they said it anyway, and they were saying it then. You can't always worry what Sabbath gasbags are blowing out their rears.
This is not the first time Pelosi has taken a while to speak up about something important. Remember that whole business about not getting accurate intelligence briefings? She had to walk that back a bit, if I remember.
I like her: I am glad she is the Speaker. But I wish if she fells she is not getting information she would say so when she has the feeling, and not years later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 3, 2010 7:26 PM in reply to Harry Truman
Had to walk it back? Not that I recall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WhatWouldWDo
May 3, 2010 11:04 PM in reply to slb
From what I remember, she was right on the merits but took a lot of flack for it (From Pete Hoekstra of all people) and did walk it back a bit
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Garrigus Carraig
May 3, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to Harry Truman
Of all the craven players in that sordid little drama, you figured out how to blame Pelosi. Well played. But watch your back. They don't call her "Nancy Smash" for nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Harry Truman
May 3, 2010 5:56 PM in reply to Garrigus Carraig
I am not blaming her: but tell me why she gets a pass?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
May 3, 2010 3:52 PM in reply to rynato
And profit handsomely they did ... and still are. Like Gomer said, "Surprise. Surprise. Surprise."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chisholm
May 3, 2010 4:36 PM in reply to tiowally
Oh come on. Why look backwards. It's not as if any of these people will ever come back to screw the nation again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Turnaround
May 3, 2010 5:10 PM in reply to Chisholm
Sure they will. We're still haunted by the ghost of Nixon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
May 3, 2010 7:24 PM in reply to Chisholm
The Cheney spawn are ready to attack. Tell me Jeb Bush doesn't have presidential aspirations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
May 3, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to tiowally
Hurray tio, your input is needed over at the Traficant thread.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sherifffruitfly
May 3, 2010 2:47 PM
Yikes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
May 3, 2010 2:47 PM
Bush and Cheney were completely forthcoming about Iraq and 9-11, I find it hard to believe they would stonewall about this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
May 3, 2010 4:32 PM in reply to traitorjoe
I know - I find it so hard to believe......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
May 3, 2010 4:59 PM in reply to chameleon
Personally I too am shocked. Shocked!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
May 3, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to CityGuy
I would definitely buy a used car from either one of them (or their gene-deprived spawn as well). I mean, why not? They wouldn't BS me, would they?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NerdRage
May 4, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to CityGuy
this has changed my whole world view and opinion of the dubya admin...
changed my life
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr. Conspiracy
May 3, 2010 2:49 PM
Whatever they are saying happened is only a glimpse of what really happened.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EnnuiDivine
May 3, 2010 2:49 PM
This doesn't surprise in the least...but why are we just hearing about this now?
Like with everything in Congress, timing is everything. It's a bit too early in the year for the Dems to use this as a campaign bump, but it's possible this bombshell can be used to boost public support for the financial reform bill. And paint anyone still tied to (or nostalgic for) the last administration as being ruthlessly blind to the plight of the common man.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
May 3, 2010 2:50 PM
So what. If we can't hold a single member of his admin responsible for the lies that led us into war in Iraq, the illegal wire tapping, and countless other illegal actions, then who really cares. Seriously. I refuse to get upset or motivated by these stories until they lead to someone being held accountable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cath
May 3, 2010 4:12 PM in reply to rbeats
Good point. The information does us little good if it fails to lead to action and accountability. I'm really sick of the way BushCo has not only escaped prosecution, but has benefitted from their greedy, evil schemes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AZskeptic
May 3, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to rbeats
Don't hold your breath.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
May 3, 2010 2:51 PM
"I said to Hank Paulson, 'Be Hank Paulson.'"
And the rest, as they say, is Misery.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nowhereman
May 3, 2010 2:54 PM
"On September 29, House Republicans blocked the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, pushing markets over a cliff and sending shudders through the White House and Wall Street."
Stupidity or the banality of evil?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
datora
May 3, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to nowhereman
Nope. Several months of planning by Whitehouse insiders and friends had gone into profiting off a complete financial meltdown. Let's call it the Goldman-Sachs model of hedge betting.
The last thing they could survive would be any actions that might have alleviated or prevented the events required to maximize their profits.
If it can be explained by simple greed, evil is sort of an afterthought ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lotl
May 3, 2010 8:48 PM in reply to datora
Greed IS evil.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
May 3, 2010 6:35 PM in reply to nowhereman
Both
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
consumetheconsumer
May 3, 2010 2:56 PM
Why didn't Bush want anyone to tell . . . he probably hoped it would all play out like it did in 2004 - none of the bad things becoming known until after the election. Only on the markets didn't wait like the press did and things got rolling a few months early.
Look on the bright side, lucky us, we could've been stuck with McCain-Palin. And where would we be now . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EH
May 3, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to consumetheconsumer
That the meat of the crisis didn't hit until October seems to back up your assertion that they were trying to wait out the clock.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
May 3, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to consumetheconsumer
Well duh! Hank Paulson had a dear in the headlights look about him for almost a year before everything blew up. Of course they tried to kick the can down the road, that's Bush's modus operandi.
Remember, I think it was in The One Percent Doctrine, a reporter asked Bush about the financial troubles that Texas was experiencing shortly after he left the Governor's job. Bush responded "I'm glad I don't have to deal with it"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 3, 2010 7:29 PM in reply to consumetheconsumer
Or like 1988, when the size of the S&L problem was successfully concealed until after the 1988 election that brought Bush, Sr. to the White House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
boycottfaux
May 3, 2010 2:57 PM
Fergetabout it . .
Just think how the RWer neocon heads will simultaneously explode when they read this from The Speaker. These freaks loathe this woman . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lapdogs
May 3, 2010 2:59 PM
Lets see how much of the Mainstream News Media covers this IN DEPTH!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TPD forever
May 3, 2010 3:03 PM
Hi! We would love for you to check out our new political forum! The forum is easy to read and even has a quote feature. This makes conversations very easy to follow!Please come and voice your thoughts! http://thepartisandialogues.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
datora
May 3, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to TPD forever
OKay ... you can stop SPAMming the comments sections here already. We've seen your SPAM several dozen times and more by now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Boidster
May 3, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to TPD forever
A quote feature! Holy crap your technology is indistinguishable from magic!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
May 3, 2010 3:11 PM
Of course the Bush administration knew, former N.Y. governor Spitzer scandal started after he wrote an op-ed piece revealing the exact same thing.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
Next thing you you know he is being sent up the river under prostitution charges because that is way more important than investigating the people who bring the nation to the brink of financial ruin ever so often.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr. Conspiracy
May 3, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to Ironcomments
Good catch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
May 3, 2010 7:39 PM in reply to Ironcomments
Are you saying he didn't get involved with prostitutes? Because if you aren't saying that, you are saying that he admitted to paying prostitutes and it wasn't true. Why would he do that? Oh, he DID pay prostitutes for sex...
I agree that he is a very smart man, and I listen to his opinions. But he did do what he was accused of, so don't blame it on anyone except himself. If he was "set up," or otherwise left out to dry, he was a willing partner and should have know better and acted more honorably.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
May 3, 2010 8:00 PM in reply to CVille Dem
I am not questioning what he did, I am questioning the timing the investigators to go public with his involvement in the ring. The investigation was not about him but of the prostitution ring. He was merely a client.
It is like cops trying to bust a drug cartel but going public with the people who bought dime bags off a street corner. It does nothing to bust up the cartel.
I could give a damn about what politician screws whom, good governance should be the yardstick of a leader not his faithfulness to arbitrary social mores.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
May 3, 2010 8:16 PM in reply to Ironcomments
Absolutely, the went after him for exposing their butts and for all the charges he brought against the Wall Street fat cats during his time as Governor and before that Attorney General. He stepped on all the wrong toes for sure and they made him pay.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
May 3, 2010 3:16 PM
I know there are few or no Republicans reading this, but on the outside chance that you are reading, how could you vote for a Republican ever again after something like this?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Effin Rightman
May 3, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to Hank
Oh, and by the way, your mothers should all give you big a smack. Shame on all of you. You know the name for shame in Yiddish? It's "bushe."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 3, 2010 4:22 PM in reply to Effin Rightman
Bushugada?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rumpole
May 3, 2010 3:30 PM
This is a great story--the kind that newspapers used to run.
Nonetheless, the D's have an interest in leaking it. If they leaked it while tarp 2 was pending, it could have sunk the bill.
If the speaker invites you to a cocktail party, have the good sense to refuse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ross Best
May 3, 2010 3:43 PM
TPM should look into how this fits with what Bill Black has been saying about the Prompt Corrective Action Law and John Talbott's recent piece on apparently fraudulent use of bank reserves at the Federal Reserve:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/04/william_k_black_on_the_prompt.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/05/01/trillion_dollar_fraud
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
May 3, 2010 3:46 PM
The fix was in, and they wanted to make sure no one, especially Congress, had any opportunity to change the trajectory of the Wall St. handout they were planning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
May 3, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to Dorn76
Just another facet of the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mimi katz
May 3, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to Dorn76
I think this is it. But they weren't really competent, and almost waited too long to tell Congress. Dodd's quote is really scary. Who would have been running it from within the WH? Rove was gone by then. Josh Bolten? Cheney?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioGuy
May 3, 2010 4:48 PM in reply to Dorn76
Sounds to me more like Bush and his politicos didn't want to admit they needed a bailout until after the election. If Paulson and Bernanke had been behind this they would have stonewalled Pelosi instead of giving that "since you called" line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ibsteve2u
May 3, 2010 3:52 PM
A person could begin to suspect that the economy wasn't supposed to blow up until the far right, war-mongering Republican Administration was replaced in the natural pendulum swing of politics by a Democratic Administration...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Capt Elaine
May 3, 2010 3:54 PM
Ha ha ha ha ha... what a surprise, it's George Bush's fault... what a bunch of do nothing, know nothing people are running this country?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Effin Rightman
May 3, 2010 4:14 PM in reply to Capt Elaine
A white woman from South Carolina whining about having a black man in the White House. This is an enlightened comment?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RWN
May 3, 2010 3:55 PM
This path is going to an interesting place. Knowing the arrogance and cockiness of Wall Street and the Investment Bank/private equity country clubs they tried to play this entire situation...trouble is their deception's aren't lasting.
I am wondering when this ball of yarn will begin to unravel. How far will this go? My inkling is that Paulson is the next fall guy, but he is merely a high priced mechanic, a genuine pawn...same as Bernacke...
For certain they were counting on winning in November and that didn't happen, by crook or otherwise.
Obama and Pelosi have to let this work itself out drop by drop but it will lead to more than just Wall Steet and the White House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
May 3, 2010 3:58 PM
Huh: the Bush administration lied to the American public, kept vital information secret, and made Congress complicit in helping Wall Street behind the scenes. Gee, what a shocker.
Obama is not doing everything a progressive would want--Gitmo is still open, warrantless wiretapping is still ongoing, there is no public option for health care, outer continental shelf oil drilling has been "conditionally approved", etc.--but I think his "favorability" rating would be considerably higher if folks would just remind themselves exactly how bad the Bush administration really was. They were a disaster, folks, and if Obama cleans up even half the mess they left behind, he's done a damn good job.
I'm probably exaggerating, but has any president other than Lincoln and Roosevelt had to deal with such an extensive mess left by a predecessor than Obama?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
May 3, 2010 4:07 PM in reply to dougom
Obama will never clean an nth of this up until he starts at the top with war crimes tribunals. Until that happens the house of cards these bastards built will not likely fall. If Eric "Place" Holder announced even one prosecution, these wannabe über-he-men would be crashing down the doors at DOJ trying to save their skin, mostly by selling all of the pals down the swiftest river they could create. But again, until that happens ....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
May 3, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to dougom
No. Gerald Ford, maybe, but I'd call his mess a distant fourth to the ones Lincoln, Roosevelt and Obama had to deal with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
May 3, 2010 4:02 PM
Okay... The proper thing to do is for Obama to order Holder to invesitgate this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GSM
May 3, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to destor23
Perhaps Holder ought to look into Barney Frank as well given his response to the pending FannieMae and FreddieMac crisis (House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003)
"I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George TheShrubber
May 3, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to GSM
Barney said a few 'unflattering' things regarding F&F oversite. He's also on record as saying flattering things regarding F&F oversite as well.
What the Shrubber apologista fails to recognize is that Mike Oxley R-OH was the financial services committee chair from 2001-2007. Which happens to coincide w/ the Repubs owning the house and senate, the presnitcy, the DOJ, and the financial services committee.
Interestingly, Mike Oxley R-OH had a few unkind words to say about the Bush admin while defending Barney:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/republican-talk.html
Oxley hits back at ideologues: In the aftermath of the US Treasury’s decision to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at lax oversight of the mortgage companies. The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have none of it. Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq. He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.” The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.
Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.
“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 3, 2010 7:38 PM in reply to George TheShrubber
Thank you for an excellent post!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
May 4, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to George TheShrubber
Mike Oxley is one of the unsung heroes of the last decade for what he tried to do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GSM
May 3, 2010 4:30 PM in reply to destor23
As he's looking into covering up a pending financial crisis for political gain, here's yet another FannieMae/FreddieMac quote from the good Congressman Mr. Frank that he may want to consider (House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003)
"I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GSM
May 3, 2010 4:37 PM in reply to destor23
Oh, and Holder should also take a look at the dear Senator Schumer's political motives related to his do nothing attitude on FannieMae and FreddieMac (Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005)
"I'll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don't think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don't undo Fannie and Freddie."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GSM
May 3, 2010 5:02 PM in reply to destor23
As Barney Frank would certainly appreciate a good old threesome while in jail, let's include Dodd along with Schumer. After all, as the biggest recipient of FannieMae/FreddieMac campaign donations, he had a lot to gain by proping up these entities as they moved towards implosion. Here's his brilliant FannieMae/ FreddieMac course of action statement (July 2008).
"This is not a time to be panicking about this. These are viable, strong institutions. The economics are fine in these institutions and people need to know that. There's no reason to talk about failure."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
May 3, 2010 7:02 PM in reply to GSM
I just noticed something, you seem to want to blame the entire financial crisis on Fannie and Freddie and any Dem that ever supported those institutions. That selective memory you have must really come in handy when your talking ditto heads and other assorted idiots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
May 3, 2010 8:08 PM in reply to expat46
This is all they have. Blame Fannie and Freddie, and individual homeowners.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GSM
May 3, 2010 9:00 PM in reply to expat46
You want to talk selective memory, clown. Every post prior to mine identified Bush and the Republicans as the ones, using your exact words "to blame the entire financial crisis" on. Take a look at my posts and you will see first hand the selective memory of the assorted progressive idiots that post here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
May 3, 2010 11:18 PM in reply to GSM
Is being that stupid painful? I mean to you, personally, not to the others around you who are forced to interact with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
May 4, 2010 10:33 AM in reply to GSM
So we agree that F&F weren't responsible for abandoning underwriting standards.
I think the question at hand is; what did Hank Paulson know and when did he know it? Do you think the treasury secretary suddenly became aware of the problem on September 14, 2008? You don't think the Bush administration would have preferred to kick the can down the road? You think they wanted to address the problem for the good of the country during a hotly contested presidential campaign? Are you stupid or just a partisan hack?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ChozenFrozen
May 3, 2010 4:02 PM
Dim Bulb was willing to play politics with an issue of vital national importance? Heaven forfend! Next we'll learn the Pope lists his religious affiliation as 'Catholic' and bears poop in the woods.
After 9-11, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. etc. this probably fell into the '...getting away with this s**t will be easy!' discussion category.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
May 3, 2010 4:23 PM
There's this huge nug too @huffpo:
Greenspan Wanted Housing-Bubble Dissent Kept Secret
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 3, 2010 4:33 PM in reply to Shrubbit
"and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand,"
Oh, you mean like you did when you tossed out that infamous line about "irrational exuberance" which helped pop the dot-com bubble?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RWN
May 3, 2010 11:05 PM in reply to Shrubbit
fascinating tidbit...but only leads deeper into the abyss of faux capitalism
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Model271
May 3, 2010 4:30 PM
Why does this story have three separate links, each adjacent to the other, on the front page under Pelosi's picture?
Those of us who have read the story already are misled into thinking that another separate link leads to another story.
And the fact that the link is displayed in full at the bottom of the page when moused over is a weak-ass excuse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jen R
May 3, 2010 4:51 PM in reply to Model271
Yeah, I hate that too. TPM does it all the time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Manju
May 3, 2010 4:44 PM
sounds far-fetched. the economy isn't national security, so its not like withholding information that a terroist attack is abut to occur.
In general, economic info is readliy avaible to everyone (thats the basis of the rational market theory which holds that stockpicking is a losers game, since everyone has the same info).
however there is indeed inside info, like perhps knowledge in advance that aig will miss a bond payment. if paulson posssesed this and failed to disclose it, pelosi should identify the info which was withheld. if the info is simply the need for a bailout, well than thats just an opinion, not a fact, and can hardly be considered the equivelent of whihholding actual information.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
May 3, 2010 4:44 PM
The Bush Administration had hoped that the meltdown would happen after the election either to blame the meltdown on Obama being elected or to at least have McCain in control so that Republicans could control the response which would have likely been huge tax cuts and gutting the entitlements.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rynato
May 3, 2010 4:50 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
they would have taken advantage of it like they did 9/11, to push through their radical agenda.
Another way in which we really dodged a bullet when we elected Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
May 3, 2010 4:45 PM
Pelosi did not need to blow the whistle on the Bush administration playing politics with the economy. John McCain had already suspended his campaign and was completely handling the matter. Why rock a sinking ship?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
May 3, 2010 4:47 PM
We've already forgotten to what degree an obstructive misleading lying bunch of assholes were in there last time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lagumbo
May 3, 2010 4:48 PM
No surprise. Everything the Bush/cheney adm did should be no surprise. But they will not be held responsible for anything. We are just beginning to see the tip of the iceberg. All the criminal wrongdoings of the Bush/Cheney and the republicans are coming to light. Everything will be exposed.The explosios of the minds, the oil spills in the GULF, all this is because greed is the key elements. We will have other disasters also. These criminals[REPUBLICANS] ran this country for a long time so don't think this is all we will see come to light.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
May 3, 2010 4:54 PM
Really, Nancy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
May 3, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to Silence
Wow. Hell must have frozen over because...I think I see...yes, that's a conservative/libertarian arguing that regulations are a good thing. That's what requiring Freddie and Fannie to have tighter lending standards would be, right? Federal regulation?
I thought "government is the problem." I thought laissez-faire economics was the truth, the light, the salvation. But, hey, whatever you guys want. Bring on the regulators!
Seriously, though, the financial crash was a failure in two distinct areas of our economy: the housing sector and the financial sector. The housing sector issued a higher-than-usual number of bad mortgages. The financial sector created derivatives and other financial instruments based on the premise that these mortgages were sound and compounded the issue through inordinate leverage ratios. Note that each of these problems was enabled with deregulation or a failure to regulate.
Yes, Democrats played a part in this. They were naively trying to loosen credit for the poor so that they would have better access to it (something even the conservative World Bank believes is a good idea). Yet, the battle cry of conservatives since before The New Deal has been to unleash the economy from government "meddling." Perhaps it's time to rethink the value of government in our economy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
May 3, 2010 9:42 PM in reply to worthy9
The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e. (See Regulation).
# The CRA requires that each insured depository institution's record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. (See CRA Ratings) CRA examinations (see Exam Schedules) are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions: the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
May 3, 2010 11:28 PM in reply to Silence
Okay, there was a law passed in 1977 that only accounted for, at worst, 25% of the total subprime loans whereas about 75% were issued by banks not covered under this law. It's been around for over 30 years with no major issues. From the same Wikipedia article you quote: "a 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower." In other words, the law didn't push banks to loan with abandon and actually seems to have encouraged better terms for the borrower.
The law itself requires that CRA-regulated banks lend in a manner "consistent with safe and sound banking operations." The law is explicit on this. Lending to people who can't afford the loan is anything but consistent with safe and sound banking operations so it can't reasonably be said that the law forced banks to issue bad loans. If you read lower in the Wiki article, it gets into the ample evidence against the claim that the CRA was primarily responsible. If anything, it was a minor contributing factor. The rest was banks gone wild.
We need regulations to curb the greed that many (but not all) companies are prone to. Even Milton Friedman, father of the neoconservative Chicago School of Economics and major proponent of deregulation once said that "do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible? And my answer to that is, no, they do not." If they won't act in manner responsible to the rest of society, we must ensure that they do for our own sake. That includes you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
May 4, 2010 8:10 AM in reply to worthy9
Regulations are absolutely necessary. However, the waters turn murky when tax codes and regs are created to FAVOR certain individuals, industries and companies. Lobbyists often seek regulations that create disadvantages for competitors of those funding the lobbying effort.
In effect, Congress is choosing winners and losers. Most business owners have encountered these "distortions".
This is the problem with regulations and tax code changes. A good reg. accomplishes something worthwhile. It does not come with exemptions for every Tom, Dick and Harry contributing to a political campaign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
May 4, 2010 9:56 AM in reply to Silence
do you imagine that tax codes and regulations can be crafted that don't create 'winners and losers'????
of course congress picks winners and losers. but you guys love this 'picking winners and losers' soundbite because it sounds unfair. this fantasy that they shouldn't take into account how taxes and regulations will affect the classes and industries that are being taxed and regulated is absurd.
the problem is not that gov't picks winners and losers. the problem is when gov't picks wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
May 4, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
The problem is when govt picks winners and loser.
Equal protection. It's good, really.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
May 4, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to Silence
again: do you imagine that tax codes and regulations can be crafted that don't create 'winners and losers'????
also: 'equal protection'??? really??? is everything just a soundbite to you???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
May 4, 2010 10:04 PM in reply to Silence
Well at least we have some common ground but I think you misunderstand the conservative ideology. The goal was never to reduce the impact of lobbyists in politics. Truly, the in words of Tom Delay, "the problem is not that there is too much money in politics. We need to grow up as a country and realize that politics is something worthy of investment."
That's why we had no-bid contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why we had a massive tax cut that disproportionately benefited the wealthy. That's why there's a drive towards privatization of government services. The conservative ideology is one of providing a "return" to your "investors" and the dominant vehicle for interfacing with your investors is lobbyists.
Make no mistake - liberals have their lobbyists and Democrats return the favor just as much as any Republican. I guess I disagree mostly with your view of regulations as something that shouldn't benefit a certain group over another. That's pretty much what regulations are supposed to do. Workplace safety requirements? They benefit the workers at the expense of business owners. Clean water laws? They benefit the population that uses this resource at the expense of those who would find it expedient to squander it. Protecting one group from another is their very function.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick_data
May 3, 2010 4:57 PM
Seriously, where in the Constitution does it say that the President dictates to Congress what they can and cannot do. The President should be reporting to Congress and the various Secretaries should be reporting to Congress. There is WAAAAAAY too much deference to the Elected King of America. More impeachments, less BS. BTW, ANY govenment official can be impeached, including cabinet Secretaries. More impeachments, I say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LFC
May 3, 2010 5:04 PM
Days before, Paulson famously dropped to one knee and begged Pelosi to round up enough Democrats to pass the bill. But the Republicans ultimately delivered the votes they promised and TARP passed on round two, and was signed into law on October 3.
IIRC, the Dems had to produce a higher percentage of yes votes from their members than the Republicans did to make it pass.
If the GOP leadership had to be depended upon to have the courage to clean up their own mess, we'd still be in the bottom of the toilet economically.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thepeoplechoose
May 3, 2010 5:09 PM
The parties involved knew during the summer of 2008 the economy was headed south and did nothing. What they did is they kept it from congress. They were hoping like hell they could keep a lid on it until after the election. I'll bet Geithner knew as well. He was running the NY FED. How could he not know?
Criminals all. Biggest ever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Manju
May 3, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to thepeoplechoose
if the parties "knew during the summer of 2008 the economy was headed south" then they simplky "knew" what everyone else knew if the direction of the variousa market indicies including the dow is any indication.
of course, tarp has been a rollicking success, and will be a major part of Obama's legacy. why dems try to distance themselves from it, like teabaggers do, is beyond me.
actaully its not. they're appealing to know-nothing economic populism once again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
May 3, 2010 5:26 PM
Of course the Bush administration knew, former N.Y. governor Spitzer scandal started after he wrote an op-ed piece revealing the exact same thing.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
Next thing you you know he is being sent up the river under prostitution charges because that is way more important than investigating the people who bring the nation to the brink of financial ruin ever so often.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
May 3, 2010 5:29 PM
And now the million dollar question... Wait for it...
WHY aren't these criminals in prison?
They are ALL in bed together...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TPD forever
May 3, 2010 5:33 PM
Hi! We would love for you to check out our new political forum! The forum is easy to read and even has a quote feature. This makes conversations very easy to follow!Please come and voice your thoughts! Feel free to post! http://thepartisandialogues.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
synchronicity
May 3, 2010 7:14 PM
I recall at the time as Paulson was asking for his 3 page bailout along with complete immunity that he was on a Sunday show and state something to the effect of 'I had to wait for it to get this bad before I could ask for this'.
That has haunted me ever since. I had to wait for it to get this bad to ask for this... I seriously feel like Paulson knew what was coming waaaayyyy before we heard about it... and I wonder why that is? How is it he wasn't able to prevent it then?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
May 3, 2010 7:23 PM
Liar, liar, pants on fire!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg&feature=related
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
May 3, 2010 7:44 PM in reply to Silence
Gee...why didn't I bother to look at your lame youtube?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 3, 2010 7:48 PM
Paulson spokeswoman Michele Davis emails to say "no one at Treasury ever felt in any way constrained by the White House from communicating with the Congress."
Which still does not answer the question Pelosi initially posed to Brian. If there were no constraints on anyone at Treasury, then why did Pelosi have to call them to find out that a bailout bill was needed immediately? Why hadn't they called her before the situation got to the point that a day's delay risked collapse of the entire system?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BaileyWu
May 3, 2010 7:55 PM
Well, Bush must have kept the secret from McCain. McCain was saying the economy was sound right up until the nosedive of "Lemon Brothers."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cully
May 4, 2010 9:59 AM in reply to BaileyWu
The only reason the Republican ticket had McCain on it was totally a dish on McCain by Shrub and the GOP in general. John Wayne McCain lives in a dream world and I doubt that there was anyone that thought their (the GOPs) ticket had a chance to win - their Pres candidate was/is addled and the pressure only exacerbated that, and the VP was just fluff and red-neck meat (though she has turned out to be more thorny than they had expected). The Admin knew exactly what was coming and made hay while they could - remember Shurb's last wish... to give Wall Street a bail out with NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
May 3, 2010 7:57 PM
House Squeaker Nazi Pelosi is as ugly inside as she is on the outside...and a total fucking liar. This will blow up in her Botoxed face just like her lies about the CIA:
** 2001
April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”
** 2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
** 2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
** 2004
February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
** 2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05)
** 2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
** 2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
“Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
“[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
“Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
May 3, 2010 8:18 PM in reply to Barney
Courtesy of George the Shrub
Barney said a few 'unflattering' things regarding F&F oversite. He's also on record as saying flattering things regarding F&F oversite as well.
What the Shrubber apologista fails to recognize is that Mike Oxley R-OH was the financial services committee chair from 2001-2007. Which happens to coincide w/ the Repubs owning the house and senate, the presnitcy, the DOJ, and the financial services committee.
Interestingly, Mike Oxley R-OH had a few unkind words to say about the Bush admin while defending Barney:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/republican-talk.html
Oxley hits back at ideologues: In the aftermath of the US Treasury’s decision to seize control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, critics have hit at lax oversight of the mortgage companies. The dominant theme has been that Congress let the two government-sponsored enterprises morph into a creature that eventually threatened the US financial system. Mike Oxley will have none of it. Instead, the Ohio Republican who headed the House financial services committee until his retirement after mid-term elections last year, blames the mess on ideologues within the White House as well as Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq. He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.” The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.
Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.
“We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we’re facing now, if we hadn’t had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed,” Mr Oxley says.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Langx
May 3, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to chameleon
You could only believe that F&F caused the market to fail if your a rabid Fuc news watcher.
When a Lehman CEO won't repudiates that BS F&F story you would think Fuc News would correct the story.
But it's Fuc News.
Former Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld: Fannie and Freddie played "de minimis" role. In an October 2008 Newsweek article, Daniel Gross reported that the following happened during testimony by Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
At Monday's hearing, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., gamely tried to pin Lehman's demise on Fannie and Freddie. After comparing Lehman's small political contributions with Fannie and Freddie's much larger ones, Mica asked Fuld what role Fannie and Freddie's failure played in Lehman's demise. Fuld's response: "De minimis."
The propaganda of Fuc News knows no bounds.
A Sen in the US Congress is repeating Fuc News propaganda.
Seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
May 3, 2010 9:39 PM in reply to Langx
The propaganda machine is very loud and it is owned by the Republicans. The media is still the mouthpiece for the republican party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
May 4, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to Barney
2 words. Mike Oxley.
Look him up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
May 3, 2010 8:02 PM
As if anyone needed ANOTHER major indictment of the appalling disaster that was the GWBush administration!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
paulw
May 3, 2010 8:09 PM
They really thought Paulson's three-page power grab would succeed. And you don't have a chance of success with something like that unless you have a gun to people's heads.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GSM
May 3, 2010 8:57 PM
You want to talk selective memory, clown. Every post prior to mine identified Bush and the Republicans as the ones, using your exact words "to blame the entire financial crisis" on. Take a look at my posts and you will see first hand the selective memory of the assorted progressive idiots that post here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
des
May 3, 2010 9:19 PM
"They really thought Paulson's three-page power grab would succeed. And you don't have a chance of success...unless you have a gun to people's heads." paulw @ 8:09 PM.
Exactly! Thank you, paulw! There was to be NO Congressional input, NO Congressional oversight; the whole thing was to be run from the Executive branch. That's why BushCo waited; just another push to expand the "unitary executive".
It didn't matter to these people if the economy tanked. Or if millions of their fellow citizens became unemployed. They weren't worried about a collapse of the US economy, with the global economy following shortly thereafter.
What mattered was grabbing as much power as possible in the time left to them. Power is ALL that matters to such people; even if the only way to get it is by destroying your own country...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
icebluee67@aol.com
May 3, 2010 9:50 PM
I'M REGRETFULLY SORRY BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT PEOSI'S WORD CAN BE TRUSTED !!! IT APPEARS SHE ALWAYS MAKINGUP STORIES LIKE THE LAST ON ABOUT TORTURE TECHNIQUES. SORRY, GIRL NO CONTIRBUTIONS FOR YOU---- ONLY BLACK COAL !!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
inokeah
May 3, 2010 10:11 PM
If she is telling the truth?!?!..........Na !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
somkaing
May 3, 2010 10:35 PM
Pelosi is a chronic liar.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone-dems-ignored-warnings/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
May 4, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to somkaing
Barney already tried throwing about nonsense out above. Have a look at the responses to that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bloggin
May 3, 2010 10:57 PM
This sounds very consistent with the actions of the Bush Administration. My guess is that they wanted to hold out as long as possible, until it becomes a major crisis, so they can politically justify his Republican congress' approval of the billions to his financial backers at AIG, along with more power to the Bush Administration.
The national and worldwide disaster that was the 8 years of Republican Rule, aka: the Bush Administration, should never be allowed to happen again.
There needs to be a video recap of those 8 years and the aftermath so the American public don't forget.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plaidsportcoat
May 4, 2010 12:25 AM
How about the fact that Bush rescinded the posse comitatus law in the year BEFORE the collapse in case there was civil unrest due to the banks failing? Why doesn't anyone write a big piece on that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marlow
May 4, 2010 1:52 AM
George W. Bush is the public face of a private corporate junta put into power by a judicial coup...while Pelosi is using this information to scare Wall Street into submission it also indites the junta as con-conspirators in fraud and theft, insider trading, lying to congress by evasion, and...proves that Pelosi is either guilty of being a failure or a co-conspirator...and any failure to fully investigate the members of the junta the house, the senate and the shadow government of Wall Street makes the current regime just as guilty...and proves that the bailout was just another step in solidifying the political coup of the "election" with a financial coup...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Langx
May 4, 2010 8:52 AM
You do realize that if Pelosi would have done her job Bush would not have been in office to bar Congress from anything.
He would have been impeached and on trial for any of his numerous crimes.
They barred her from talking about torture. They barred her from talking about the financial crisis.
What else did they bar her from.
Nancy Pelosi should be blaming herself for allowing the criminal administration to stay in power when she had the power to do something about it.
Please Nancy. Stop it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
marysteeleyorktownva
May 4, 2010 12:26 PM
Bush, Cheney, Rove and Obama are all peas in a pod-liars pod that is! The one thing Obama promised and costs NO additional dollars, was to "hold illegal employers accountable", doing that would open up 8 Million much-needed jobs and drive illegals out of our E.R.'s where Obama admitted they go to and we pay for!! But here we are with massive unemployment and the massive costs that come with illegals, and they want to give these people amnesty-ridiculous!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jwoolman
May 4, 2010 8:21 PM
If it was so urgent that the briefing couldn't wait until the next morning, even 9 am would have been "too late", and they couldn't bring up the crisis until asked -- what might have happened if Pelosi didn't call them at that precise time?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 5, 2010 11:03 PM
sounds far-fetched. the economy isn't national security, so its not like withholding information that a terroist attack is abut to occur.
In general, economic info is readliy avaible to everyone (thats the basis of the rational market theory which holds that stockpicking is a losers game, since everyone has the same info).
however there is indeed inside info, like perhps knowledge in advance that aig will miss a bond payment. if paulson posssesed this and failed to disclose it, pelosi should identify the info which was withheld. if the info is simply the need for a bailout, well than thats just an opinion, not a fact, and can hardly be considered the equivelent of whihholding actual information.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
domainguru2010
July 9, 2010 2:24 AM
That's why we had no-bid contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why we had a massive tax cut that disproportionately benefited the wealthy. That's why there's a drive towards privatization of government services. The conservative ideology is one of providing a "return" to your "investors" and the dominant vehicle for interfacing with your investors is lobbyists.
gold
kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
domainguru2010
July 10, 2010 12:07 AM
The national and worldwide disaster that was the 8 years of Republican Rule, aka: the Bush Administration, should never be allowed to happen again.
kamagra
yellowgold
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?